Disposed¶22

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WPIL/1176/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition for execution of revenue court orders; paragraph 460 U.P. Revenue Court Manual execution remedy; Section 210 U.P. Revenue Code-2006; Section 67 of the Code; mandamus; Gaon Sabha encroachment; Ganga Devi Vs. L.M.C./Secretary Gram Panchayat Pilkhav; Manbhavati v. State of U.P. 2020 1 AWC 789A; Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. Writ C No. 7863 of 2018; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar, J.; decided 06-05-2026; PIL No. 1176 of 2026 (also styled WPIL No. 1176 of 2026); petition disposed with liberty to seek execution under law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law; no mandamus issued. ¶22

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law; no mandamus issued.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus for action in pursuance of orders passed by revenue authorities is maintainable, or whether the petitioner must pursue the execution remedy available under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶15

Court's answer

Accepting the preliminary objection, the Court declined to interfere: the writ petition is not entertained for execution/implementation of orders passed by revenue authorities, having regard to the Division Bench decisions in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020 1 AWC 789A) and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 7863 of 2018) and the execution procedure under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law (i.e., the statutory execution remedy).

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.) disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL No. 1176 of 2026) filed by Praveen Kumar Upadhyay seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to act in pursuance of an order dated 22.05.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. 334/2024 (Ganga Devi Vs. L.M.C./Secretary Gram Panchayat Pilkhav through its Pradhan and others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006, for removal of alleged illegal encroachment. On the preliminary objection of the Standing Counsel, the Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by revenue authorities, in view of the Division Bench decisions in Manbhavati v. State of U.P., 2020 1 AWC 789A, and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 7863 of 2018), and paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, under which decrees/orders under the Code are to be executed mutatis mutandis in accordance with Chapter V and paragraphs 137 and 138. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1176 of 2026

¶3

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vikas Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 55

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri P. K. Gutpa, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.

¶12

This petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶13

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to take action against the respondent no.6 and 7 in pursuance of the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 334/2024, Computerized Case No. C202417000000334 (Ganga Devi Vs. L.M.C./Secretary Gram Panchayat Pilkhav through its Pradhan and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006."

¶14

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforementioned orders have been passed by the revenue authorities for removal of illegal encroachment, but the same have not been given effect to.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others) the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by revenue authorities. It has been further submitted by learned Standing

¶16

WPIL No. 1176 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the petitioners have remedy for getting the order implemented. For ready reference, paragraph no. 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, is quoted as under:

¶19

"460. Execution of decree and order- (1) The decree or order passed under the Code or the Rules framed under the Code shall, mutatis mutandis, be executed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V.

¶20

(2) The Assistant Collector/Tahsildar passing the order for eviction or recovery of any amount of damages or compensation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Code shall get the order executed and in execution of the order he shall, mutatis mutandis, follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 137 and 138."

¶21

In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

May 6, 2026

Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Data Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Panelal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivbabu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Parasuram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jitendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others