Allahabad High Court
WRIC/17835/2026 of DAYANAND Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 5 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17835 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "Issue a
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17835 of 2026
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, 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 parties, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 to consider and decide the applications/representations dated 06.01.2022 and 24.06.2022 (filed for implementation of the appellate order) submitted by the petitioner, which are still pending before him, for implementation of the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Second, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal Case No. 1485 of 2020-21, Computerised Case No. C2021-1100001485 (Dayanand and Others vs. State of U.P.), under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, relating to Village Dhaulana, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur, within such stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order has been passed under Section 38(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 16.11.2021 but the same could not be implemented.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel for the State that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by the Revenue Court in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manbhavati Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dayanand .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
State of U.P. and 6 others).
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance. May 6, 2026 Ved Prakash WRIC No. 17835 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad