Allahabad High Court
PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF UP AND 15 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The Court held that the mere pendency of an appeal does not justify a direction for implementation of the order, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
Pawan Kumar filed a writ petition seeking implementation of an order dated 06‑10‑2025 passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. An appeal against that order is pending and was admitted on 23‑07‑2026, with the file of the subordinate authority summoned. The petitioner argued that the pending appeal should not prevent execution of the order and prayed for a direction to that effect. The High Court declined to issue such a direction, holding that doing so would render the appeal infructuous. The petition was disposed, and the court directed the Appellate Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits within four months, fixing short dates for hearing.
Issues considered
- The pendency of an appeal under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, bars the execution/implementation of the impugned order.
- Whether the High Court can issue a direction to implement the order despite the pending appeal.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24, 24(4)
Subjects
- writ petition
- implementation of order
- pendency of appeal
- Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code
- appellate commissioner
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38484 of 2026
Pawan Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of UP And 15 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babboo Ram
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Prayer made in this writ petition is to implement the order dated
06.10.2025 passed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case
No. 16801 of 2025.
3. Admittedly, an appeal filed against the said order is pending and the
same has been admitted on 23.07.2026, whereby the file of the
subordinate authority has been summoned by the Additional
Commissioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere pendency of
appeal would not be an obstruction in execution/implementation of the
order under challenge in the appeal and, therefore, direction should be
issued.
5. The Court is not inclined to accept the submissions and issue a
direction, which may render the appeal as infructuous.
6. In view of the above, the direction as prayed for is declined, however,
the writ petition is disposed of directing the Appellate Commissioner to
decide the Appeal No. 1801 of 2026 (Computerized Case No.
C20261100001801), under Section 24(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, on
merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by
fixing short dates preferably on weekly/fortnightly basis within a period
WRIC No. 38484 of 2026
2
of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before
him.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 23, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…