Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25457 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000038 of 2012 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Rastogi Respondent :- Court Of Additional Judge Small Causes-Ii Court No. 19 And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Chandra,Retesh Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar,Dinesh Kumar Misra,Divyanshu Mishra,Sushil Kumar Rastogi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of the respondent even in the revised call. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 13.01.2012 whereby the execution application for execution of an order of release was rejected on the ground of it being beyond limitation. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner as a landlord had filed an application under Section 21(1)(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The said was decided exparte on 29.04.1995, thereafter recall applications were filed by the respondent on three occasion, which was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for execution of the exparte order passed in favour of the petitioner on 29.04.1995. The said application was filed in the year 2008 after the expiry of all the proceedings initiated by the respondent, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that it was beyond the period of 12 years. The said order is under challenge. 4. In terms of the scheme of the 1972 Act, it is clear that after the passing of an order, the duty is on the Prescribed Authority to enforce the order of eviction, the specific application under Order 21 is not required, once the duty is cast on the Prescribed Authority, the application for execution cannot be rejected as being beyond limitation. 5. Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 35 and 38 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 to argue that the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would override the Transfer of Property Act as well as the Code of Civil Procedure. In Section 35 of the Act, only the provision of Section 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act, in view of the prescription contained in Section 35 and 38, it is clear that the entire Limitation Act is not applicable, the provisions of Order 21 also also not applicable and the only mode of execution is prescribed under Section 23, wherein the duty is cast upon the Prescribed Authority to execute the order of eviction. 6. Even otherwise, the occupation of the tenant after the allowing of the release application is wholly illegal under the scheme of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which prescribes that any person can occupy the building only after the allotment is made in his favour by the proper authority. Thus for all the reasons recorded above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to execute the eviction order, if already not executed, within the period of six months in view of the directions by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 (Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs. V. Rajamani and Anr. ETC) dated 06.03.2025. 7. The petition is finally disposed of, in terms of above. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench