Allahabad High Court
BADRUL HASAN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed because execution of a Section 67 eviction order must follow the procedure prescribed in Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, not a writ remedy.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to enforce an eviction order dated 29.05.2023, issued by the Tahsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner alleged that the order had not been executed and requested the court to order removal of the illegal encroachment. The court noted that the eviction order was indeed passed under the said provision, but execution of such orders is governed by Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Accordingly, the court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate mechanism for execution of a Section 67 order. The petition was dismissed, with a direction that the appropriate proceeding under the Revenue Court Manual be initiated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition for mandamus can be entertained for the execution of an eviction order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- eviction
- mandamus
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 67
- Revenue Court Manual
- public interest litigation
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35863 of 2026
Badrul Hasan Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Kant Singh
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:
"A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to
ensure compliance of eviction order dated 29.05.2023 passed by Tahsildar in Case
No.1423/2022, U/s 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 gram Samaj Vs. Safeekul Hasan,
within stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order
passed by Tahsildar under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for
eviction and damages, the order has not been given effect on spot in
proper manner. He further submitted that appropriate direction be issued
for removal of illegal encroachment over the plot in question in pursuance
of the order passed by the Tahsildar, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.
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 the order for eviction and
damages was passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in
respect to the plot in question.
WRIC No. 35863 of 2026
2
6. Under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the provision has been
prescribed for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, as such, the instant writ petition cannot be
entertained for execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.
7. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed with observation that
the appropriate proceeding can be initiated in accordance with law as
prescribed under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…