Disposed¶17

Meera Devi v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026WRIC/10161/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; summary settlement of boundary disputes; demarcation; possession restoration; execution/enforcement of revenue court orders; non-compliance by SDO; police assistance for delivery of possession (kabja); revision dismissed at admissibility stage by Commissioner Azamgarh Division; Meena Devi guidelines (paras 44–46); statewide circulation of guidelines; RCCMS protocol; writ disposed with compliance direction; SDM Madhuban, District Mau; Case No.01480 of 2022; Revision No.2131 of 2025; order dated 29.01.2024; order dated 07.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to comply with the order dated 29.01.2024 strictly in accordance with law and as per the observations in Meena Devi (supra), unless there is no legal impediment. ¶17

Meera Devi vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to comply with the unexecuted order dated 29.01.2024 (passed under Section 24, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the observations in Meena Devi (supra).

¶9

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition finally, directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to comply with the order dated 29.01.2024 strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the observations in Meena Devi (supra), unless there is no legal impediment.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), Writ-C No. 10161 of 2026, decided March 18, 2026 — Meera Devi v. State of U.P. & 9 Others. The petitioner's Section 24, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 case (Case No.01480 of 2022) was decided in her favour by the SDO, Madhuban, District Mau vide order dated 29.01.2024. The private respondents' revision (No.2131 of 2025) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division vide order dated 07.01.2026, with a direction to the subordinate court to ensure delivery of possession to the opposite party within 10 days with police assistance in compliance with the order dated 29.01.2024. Alleging continued non-compliance, the petitioner approached this Court. Relying on the Coordinate Bench ruling in Meena Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 others (Writ C No.35470 of 2025, decided 18.12.2025), particularly paragraphs 44–46 thereof (which, inter alia, direct statewide circulation of guidelines, training/RCCMS compliance, and execution of all subject orders in that batch within four weeks), the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to comply with the order dated 29.01.2024 strictly in accordance with law and per the Meena Devi observations, unless there is no legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10161 of 2026

¶3

Meera Devi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Court No. - 6

¶6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶7

In the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being Case No.01480 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.T202215510301480), order dated 29.01.2024 had been passed by the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Officer, Madhuban District Mau in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, private respondents had filed revision being Revision No.2131 of 2025 which was dismissed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner Azamgarh Division Azamgarh vide order dated 07.01.2026. The operative portion of the order dated 07.01.2026 reads as follows:-

¶8

5- अतः िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िनगरानी पोषणीय नहीं पाये जाने के कारण ग्राह्यता स्तर पर ही िनरस्त की जाती है। अवर न्यायालय को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक आदेश िदनांक 29.01.2024 के अनुपालन में पुिलस बल की सहायता से 10 िदन में िवपक्षी को कब्जा िदलाना सुिनिश्चत करें। बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही इस न्यायालय की पत्रावली दािखल दफ्तर होवे।

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the aforequoted direction, the order dated 29.01.2024 passe by the respondent No.3 has not been complied with till date.

¶10

Law has been well settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions being leading Writ C No.35470 of 2025 (Meena

¶11

WRIC No. 10161 of 2026

¶12

¶13

Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 18.12.2025, in which certain directions were given in paragraph nos.44 to 46 which reads as follows:-

¶14

"44. Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 vests the SDO with statutory quasi-judicial powers for summary settlement of boundary disputes coupled with mandatory enforcement authority for demarcation and possession restoration. Execution is not discretionary but integral to the provision's efficacy—failure to enforce renders the entire summary mechanism otiose and defeats the legislative intent. The broad guidelines formulated aim at providing for a structured framework harmonizing statutory mandates (Section 24 of Code, 2006; Rule 22 of Rules, 2016), executive instructions (Government Order dated 16.12.2025), administrative law principles, and constitutional imperatives of fairness and public order. The concerned respondents, in particular the SDO and Collector, are under law bound to ensure that orders under Section 24 are effectively enforced.

¶15

45. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure statewide circulation of aforestated guidelines to all revenue authorities within the State. A mechanism for providing mandatory training and RCCMS protocol compliance may also be ensured.

¶16

46. The respondents, particularly the concerned SDOs are directed forthwith to execute all subject orders in the instant batch of writ petition, within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, strictly as per approved site memo/demarcation report, by ensuring affixation of boundary marks and also possession restoration, wherever required. "

¶17

In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to comply with

¶18

WRIC No. 10161 of 2026

¶19

¶20

the order dated 29.01.2024 strictly in accordance with law as well as observations made in the case of Meena Devi (Supra) as quoted above unless there is no legal impediment.

¶21

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶22

March 18, 2026 saqlain

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meera Devi v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Similar cases

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Vijay Pal Singh and 54 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muktar Vs A.D.C.

Reena Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Moiuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others