Allahabad High Court
KOMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as execution of the order under Section 67 must be pursued under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, not through a writ jurisdiction.
Summary
The petitioner, Komal, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking mandamus directing the Tehsildar of Rudhauli Tehsil to enforce an order passed under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for demolition of an illegal construction, and also directing the Collector to decide a representation. The petitioner alleged that despite the order, the authorities had taken no action. The Court observed that an order under Section 67 had indeed been passed against the private respondent. However, the Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual, paragraph 460, prescribes the procedure for execution of such orders. Consequently, the Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained for the purpose of implementing the order. The petition was therefore dismissed, with a direction that the appropriate proceedings under the Manual be initiated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained for the execution of an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- Whether mandamus may be directed to the Tehsildar/Collector for implementation of such an order
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Section 67
- U.P. Revenue Code
- implementation of order
- Revenue Court Manual
- execution of revenue order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28079 of 2026
Komal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chitrakul Vipinam Vasudev, Santosh
Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadesh Kumar Patel,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Tehsildar Tehsil Rudhauli District Basti (respondent
No. 3) to take strict action upon the report of revenue officials in Case
No. 178 of 2025 (Computrized Case No. T202517140400178 (State Vs.
Bhagwandas) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by
demolishing the illegal construction raised by respondent No. 4 over
Gata No. 304/0.022 hectare area 0.010 situated at village Gandharia
Faij, Tappa recorded as Road, and/or
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
the Collector, Basti (respondent No. 2) to decide the representation of
the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 within the time stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court.
C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
D. Allow the writ petition with cost throughout to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the order
passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order has
not been given effect. He submitted that petitioner has filed an application
before the authority for the implementation of the order, but no steps has
been taken by the authorities, as such authorities be directed to take
appropriate steps in accordance with law.
WRIC No. 28079 of 2026
2
4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that an order under Section 67 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar against the
private respondent.
6. Under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, provision has been
prescribed for implementation/execution of the order passed under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such the writ petition
cannot be entertained for implementation/execution of the order passed
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
7. The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that appropriate
proceeding can be initiated as provided under para 460 of the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 9, 2026
Neetu
Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…