Allahabad High Court
WPIL/2138/2026 of SUNIL TYAGI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 9 OTHERS on 30 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2138 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2138 of 2026
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 10.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to remove the illegal encroachment made by respondent nos. 4 to 9 over Plot Nos. 249, 254 and 257, recorded as Parikrama Marg and Holi Ka Sthan, in the relevant revenue records, relating to Village Talhedi Buzurg, Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed against the encroachers for their eviction and recovery of damages on 24.2.2026. However, no further action has been taken to get the land in question vacated. The present petition is in fact for implementation of the order passed by the revenue authorities.
4. 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 789 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 Court. It has been further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the petitioner has remedy for getting the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Vijay Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani Sunil Tyagi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)
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."
5. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law. October 1, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WPIL No. 2138 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad