Disposed¶21

Naman Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WPIL/817/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: PIL; writ petition; implementation of revenue orders; Section 67(1) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Rule 460 U.P. Revenue Court Manual; Tehsildar Jakhaniya; District Ghazipur; Village Shivpur; Plot Nos. 408, 392, 390; encroachment; eviction; recovery of damages; recall application allowed; case restored; notices to encroachers; Government Order dated 19.10.2023; direction for expeditious execution; petition disposed. Bench: Arun Kumar, J. (single judge). Decided April 20, 2026. No case law cited; no dissent; no monetary award.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, to ensure that the orders passed by him under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which have attained finality, are brought to their logical end in accordance with law, expeditiously. ¶21

Naman Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 13.10.2023 and 28.10.2023 passed by the Tehsildar under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had been implemented, and whether the Court should direct their execution/compliance.

¶20

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, to ensure that the orders passed by him under Section 67(1) of the Code, which have attained finality, are brought to their logical end in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Since the relief claimed by the petitioner for compliance of the order dated 28.10.2023 had been initiated by the Tehsildar Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.) disposed of Public Interest Litigation No. 817 of 2026 filed by Naman Kumar Rai against the State of U.P. and 5 others, which sought implementation of orders dated 13.10.2023 and 28.10.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction of respondent nos. 5 and 6 and recovery of damages, alleging that applications under Rule 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual had not resulted in registration of execution proceedings. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 01.04.2026, instructions dated 20.04.2026 of the Tehsildar were placed on record, showing that a recall application dated 14.02.2025 against the 13.10.2023 eviction order (respondent no. 5) had been allowed and the original case restored (next date 24.04.2026), and that notices dated 17.04.2026 had been issued to encroachers of Plot Nos. 408 and 392, Village Shivpur, removal to follow the Government Order dated 19.10.2023. Holding that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, the Court disposed of it with a direction to the Tehsildar to ensure that orders under Section 67(1) which have attained finality are brought to their logical end in accordance with law, expeditiously. No precedent was cited or discussed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 817 of 2026

Naman Kumar Rai

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others	: Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri .....Respondent
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 55

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶10

On 01.04.2026, the following orders were passed in the matter:-

¶11

"1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 to 3 and Sri Amit Gupta, holding brief of Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶12

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, orders dated 13.10.2023 and 28.10.2023 were passed against the respondent nos.5 and 6 for their eviction and recovery of damages, however, till date no action has been taken for its implementation. The petitioner has moved several application under rule 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual but no proceedings are being registered as required under the law.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to page 42 of the writ petition where on application moved by the petitioner under rule 460, a noting has been made by the Tehsildar, directing Revenue Inspector to implement the orders annexed herewith. It is contended that after the said noting made, nothing has happened till date.

¶14

4. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain instruction from the Tehsildar Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, regarding the present status of the proceedings under rule 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, in respect of plot no.408 and 390, situated in Village Shivpur, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, in pursuance of his orders dated 13.10.2023 and 28.10.2023.

¶15

5. List as fresh on 20.04.2026."

¶16

WPIL No. 817 of 2026

¶17

¶18

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 1.4.2026, instructions dated 20.04.2026, received by the learned Standing Counsel from the Tehsildar, Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, has been placed before the Court, which is taken on record.

¶19

A perusal of the aforesaid instructions shows that against the order of the Tehsildar, dated 13.10.2023, directing eviction of respondent no. 5, a recall application dated 14.02.2025 was filed, which has been allowed and the original case has been restored to its original number, in which 24.04.2026 is the next date fixed. However, with regard to the other order passed under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in respect of Plot No. 408 and 392, notices have been issued on 17.04.2026 to the encroachers to remove the encroachment. It is further contended that the encroachment made by the respondent no. 6 over Plot No. 392 shall be removed alongwith other encroachers of Plot No. 408, in accordance with the Government Order dated 19.10.2023.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid instructions, the relief claimed by the petitioner for compliance of the order dated 28.10.2023, having been initiated by the Tehsildar Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, no useful purpose would be served in keeping in present writ petition pending.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur, to ensure that the orders passed by him, under Section 67(1) of the Code, which have attained finality, are brought to its logical end, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶22

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶23

April 20, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naman Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Sharma vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Shankar Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Surendra and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Istekar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kunwar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others