Rajesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law (implementation of the order dated 26.05.2012 through the prescribed execution remedy); no direction issued for removal of the alleged encroachment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable for execution/implementation of orders passed by revenue authorities, having regard to the Division Bench decision in Manbhavati v. State of U.P., Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P.), and paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. +1 more

Court's answer

Accepting the preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel and relying on 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), the Court was not inclined to interfere, holding that a writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by revenue authorities and that the petitioner has a remedy under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual for getting the order implemented.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL disposed of. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to remove an alleged encroachment by respondent no.6 over plot no.103M (area 1.9090 hectare, recorded as Usar) in Village Chakava Chandel, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, and to implement the order dated 26.05.2012 passed in proceedings under Section 122B directing eviction of respondent no.6 and recovery of damages, which had not been given effect to for about 14 years despite representations. Upholding the State's preliminary objection and relying on the Division Bench decision in Manbhavati v. State of U.P., 2020 1 AWC 789A, and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others), Arun Kumar, J. held that a writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by revenue authorities; the remedy for implementation lies under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual (execution mutatis mutandis in accordance with Chapter V, with the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar following paragraphs 137 and 138 for orders under Section 67 of the Code). Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under law. (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 55, decided May 12, 2026.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1232 of 2026

Rajesh Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Suneel Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

Court No. - 55

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

Heard Sri Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent no.6 over plot no.103M area 1.9090 hectare recorded as Usar in the revenue records relating to Village Chakava Chandel, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier proceedings under Section 122B were initiated against respondent no.6 in which an order dated 26.05.2012 was passed directing her eviction and recovery of damages. Despite several representation having been made by the petitioner, till date the said order has not been given effect to.

The present PIL has been filed for implementation of the order passed by the revenue authorities after 14 years.

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 Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the U.P.

WPIL No. 1232 of 2026

2

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:

"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.

(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."

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

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 12, 2026

Ashok Kr.

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