Allahabad High Court
WRIC/16387/2026 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS on 5 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16387 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16387 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 and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents i.e. respondent no. 2 & 4 to get remove the obstacle over the pathway of the petitioner to access to his agricultural land i.e. bhumidhari land being arazi no. 166 made by the private respondent no. 6 to 13 and the order dated 16.01.2023 be complied with in letter and spirit, in exercising the power provided under section 25 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2026 as well as Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Code Manual."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that an order dated 16.01.2023 has been passed, but the same has 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 789A 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 petitioners have 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) : Sheshmani Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Sandeep Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 12 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 same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the remedy as available to them under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. May 6, 2026 Ved Prakash WRIC No. 16387 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad