Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Kumar Pal vs State Of U.P And 6 Others on 9 July, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111278 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18000 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Roshni Shukla,Sharad Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Ms. Roshni Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent No. 4 to comply with the order dated 27.9.2022 passed by the respondent No. 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order having been passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code on 27.9.2022, the same has not been given effect till date. He further submits that the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is required to be implemented under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate action consequent to the order dated 27.9.2022 passed in Case No. 02389 of 2021 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. A perusal of the para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual empowers implementation of the orders passed under Chapter IV. The relevant Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is being reproduced hereunder:-
"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/Tehsildar passing the order for eviction or recovery of any amount of damages or compensation under the prvisions 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."
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the orders passed by the Revenue Court in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Manbhavati vs. State of U.P. and others; 2020 1 AWC 789A as well as in Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others).
5. In the opinion of the Court, the present writ petition can be disposed of by requiring the petitioner to file an application invoking para 460 of the Revenue Court Manual within one week from today. In the eventuality of such an application being filed, it is expected that the respondent no. 4, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Payagraj shall look into the application and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within next three weeks.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)