Allahabad High Court
WRIC/10477/2025 of SANJEEV KUMAR MAURYA AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT., LKO. AND OTHERS on 14 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10477 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri M. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for State-respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh on behalf of respondent No.5- Gram Sabha of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10477 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, 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 M. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for State-respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh on behalf of respondent No.5- Gram Sabha of the village concerned.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the private respondent is dispensed with.
3. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has alleged that the private respondent has encroached upon the land of gata No.947/0.142 hectare situated at Village Behra Bhari, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur.
4. It has further been submitted that the petitioners filed case No.024323/2024 for demarcation of land before Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur which was allowed vide order dated 30.7.2024 directing Tehsildar, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur to comply the said order. It is further submitted that the recall application filed against the said order of demarcation has been rejected on 23.5.2025.
5. It has been submitted that despite dismissal of the recall application the State-authorities are not executing the order dated 30.7.2024.
6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of instructions submits that the order has already been executed but in case the same has not been executed the petitioner has equally efficacious and alternate remedy of executing the orders of revenue court as per Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual where an order of revenue authority can be executed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Meva Lal Yadav, Harshita Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Sanjeev Kumar Maurya And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press this petition and seeks liberty to approach the competent authority under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual for execution of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as of the other authorities.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority by moving appropriate application under Para 460 of Revenue Court Manual to execute the orders of the revenue authorities. In case, such an application is moved within two weeks from today the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. November 14, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 10477 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench