Allahabad High Court

SOMARU PRASAD VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as execution of the revenue order must follow the statutory procedure and cannot be compelled by a mandamus.

Summary

Somaru Prasad Verma filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Assistant Collector to enforce an eviction and damages order dated 24‑08‑2020 passed under Section 122‑B of the U.P. Zilla and Land Revenue Act, 1950. The petitioner alleged that despite the order, the authorities had taken no steps to execute it and requested the court’s intervention. The High Court observed that the order had indeed been passed and was pending execution, but noted that execution is governed by the procedure laid down in para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Accordingly, the court held that a writ petition for implementation of such a revenue order is not maintainable. The petition was dismissed with a direction that the appropriate statutory proceedings for execution be initiated.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained for the execution of a revenue order passed under Section 122‑B of the U.P. Zilla and Land Revenue Act, 1950
Whether the procedural provisions of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preclude judicial interference in the execution of the order

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
U.P. Zilla and Land Revenue Act, 1950 — s. 122-B

Subjects

writ petition
mandamus
execution of revenue order
eviction
U.P. Zilla and Land Revenue Act
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 122-B
Section 67
Revenue Court Manual

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28092 of 2026

Somaru Prasad Verma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kirti Singh, Sumod 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 Mr. Shridhar Tripathi,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2, Assistant Collector (First Class)/ Tehsildar Judicial
Pindara, Varanasi to comply with the order dated 24.8.2020 passed by
respondent no.2 in case no. 5/29/2015 computerized case no.
20151470025129 report Lekhpal Vs. Doodh Nath and others under
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 for evicttion of respondent
nos. 3 to 7 from arazi no. 186 area 0.200 hectare Bhita situated in Village
Barawan Pargana Kolasala Tehsil Pindara, District Varanasi as well as
recovery of Rs. 4990/- as damages and Rs. 5/- as execution expresses
from them expeditiously if possible within a period of three months or as
fixed by the Hon'ble Court."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order for
eviction and damages passed under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and
L.R. Act in respect to the plot no. 186 which is recorded as bhita, the
order has not been given effect. He submitted that application has
been filed before the authorities for implementation of the order
passed under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act but no steps
has been taken by the authorities, as such, direction be issued to the
authority to consider the petitioner's application for execution of the
WRIC No. 28092 of 2026
2

order passed under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for
the petitioner and perused the records.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that order for eviction and
damages has been passed by Tehsildar in respect to plot in question
which has been maintained in revision.

6. Under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, procedure has
been prescribed for implementation/ execution of the order passed
under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was earlier
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as such, writ petition for
implementation/ execution of the order cannot be entertained.

7. No interference is required in the matter.

8. Writ petition is dismissed with observation that proper proceeding
can be initiated for implementation/ execution of the final order
passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006/ Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with law.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 16, 2026
Vandana Y.

Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…