HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5413 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. In light of the order proposed to be passed notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's grand father namely Durga was original tenure holder of land bearing Gata No. 1043, area 0.2670 hectares situated at Village - Kondari, Pargana - Machhrehta, Tehsil - Mishrikh, District - Sitapur and Gata No. 447, area 0.1210 hectares, situated at Village - Dengra, Pargana - Machhrehta, Tehsil - Mishrikh, District - Sitapur. During his life time petitioner's uncle namely Munna S/o Durga executed a registered will dated 13.06.2005 in favour of petitioner. After death of petitioner's uncle Munna, his son Beche Lal (brother of petitioner) got his name entered in the revenue records after suppressing the facts. When petitioner came to know about the fact of mutation of name of Beche Lal, petitioner filed objections. Tehsildar, Mishrikh Sitapur after considering the objections of petitioner ordered status quo over the disputed land by means of order dated 23.05.2006 and further directed the parties not to create any third party rights. On 12.02.2015, petitioner's brother Beche Lal died. 4. After death of Beche Lal, respondent no. 6 on the basis of forged will dated 07.01.2016, filed an application on 04.04.2016 for becoming necessary party and claimed his right over the land in dispute. The application filed by respondent no. 6 was allowed on 09.12.2024, and he became party to the case. Tehsildar, after hearing the parties passed order dated 11.02.2025, directing respondent no. 5 to inquire into the legal heirs of the deceased and mutate their names in the revenue records. Grievance of petitioner is that after passing of order dated 11.02.2025, the State respondents are not taken any steps in compliance of order dated 11.02.2025. 5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has equally efficacious and alternate remedy of executing the orders of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vimla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) revenue court as per Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual where an order of revenue authority can be executed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioner 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. 7. 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. September 9, 2025 A. Verma A227 No. 5413 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench