Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13204 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1161 of 2025 Petitioner :- Syed Kamil Hasan Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate Mishrikh District Sitapur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Pandey,Mohd. Karim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the Tehsildar to execute the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') Gaon Sabha, Mohammadnagar v. Gajrani. The Court had put a pinpointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner has locus to seek execution of the said order to which it has been answered that since the petitioner was the complainant and the petitioner had also filed a petition bearing Writ Petition (PIL) No.566 of 2024, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 09.07.2024 had permitted the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 and on the basis thereof that the proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the present petitioner was neither a party to the said proceedings and only on his instance the proceedings were initiated. Apparently, the order has been passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 dated 08.10.2024, however, the said order is appealable in terms of Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006. There is no averment in the petition as to whether any appeal or revision has been preferred against the impugned order by the affected party. The record also indicates that by the prayer, the petitioner seeks execution of the two separate cases one against Gajrani and other against Ram Karan. Be that as it may, the petitioner does not have a locus as he was not a party, his role was exhausted the movement. The authorities have taken note of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. Consequently, the petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench