Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73489 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39794 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order rule or direction in the nature of issue, writ, order, rule or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to complied with the order dated 22.12.2021 as well as the decree dated 21.02.2022 passed by Up Zila Adhikari, Etmadpur in case no. RST/02528/2020(computerized case по. T- 202001010302528) (Rajpal Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar) under section 116 U.P. Revenue Code of partition of the land of area 0.2305 hectare of khata no. 022, Khasra no. 107 village Malupur, tehsil Etmadpur, District Agra, in his favour, and to deliver the actual and physical possession to the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order on spot, so the justice be done (b) Issue, writ, order, rule or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to take the appropriate legal action in the present matter against all concerned who are responsible for delay in compliance of the aforesaid order, so the justice be done." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order dated 22.12.2021 has been passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, but the same has not been given effect to. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is an executable order as the provisions of C.P.C. will apply to the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It has been further submitted that 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. State of U.P. and 6 others) the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by the Revenue Court. It has been further contended 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:- "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 petitioner to move an appropriate application before the authority concerned and in case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad