Allahabad High Court
WPIL/2269/2026 of FAHIM KHAN Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS on 22 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2269 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri Pradeep Singh, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2269 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 Sri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri Pradeep Singh, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to implement the orders dated 30.09.2023 and 30.09.2019 passed in proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for eviction of encroachers and recovery of damages.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
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 authorities. 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 order implemented. For ready reference, paragraph no. 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, is quoted as under: Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Ji Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Fahim Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s)
"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 above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law. September 23, 2026 Ashok Kr. WPIL No. 2269 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad