HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2357 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amritesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Sri Harsh Vardhan Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. On 17.9.2025, following order was passed in the matter:- "A supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today. It is taken on record. The petitioner seeks execution of the order dated 04.11.2023 directing removal of encroachment from plot no. 61/0.005 situate in Village Bhaluahi, Pargana Rari, Tehsil Badlapur District Jaunpur. Earlier the copy of the order directing removal of encroachment was not enclosed. Now that copy has been enclosed along with a supplementary affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order is not being executed. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is accepted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, whereas that on behalf of respondent no. 5, by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, Advocate. Both the learned Counsel are granted two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent nos. 6 to 8, returnable on 09.10.2025. Steps to serve the said respondents shall be taken by R.P.A.D., within three working days next. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amritesh Dwivedi, Shefali Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Singh Prashant Kumar Bind .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Adjourned to 09.10.2025. To be taken up in the cause list of the day at the top, along with a report regarding service and the postal track attached. The office shall also put in a report regarding status of pleadings. Apart from the counter affidavits to be filed on behalf of the respondents, let the Tahsildar, Tahsil Badlapur, Jaunpur show cause, by his own affidavit, why the order dated 04.11.2023 has not been executed so far. In case any appeal has been filed from the said orders, the number of the appeal current status and the authority before whom it is pending shall be indicated in the affidavit. In the event, no appeal has been filed, or if filed, has been rejected with affirmation of the order, the Tahsildar will indicate, if there is any order of stay granted by a Court of superior jurisdiction. In case neither contingency is there, preventing eviction, the Tahsildar will show cause why the eviction order has not been executed so far. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Badlapur, Jaunpur through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur within 48 hours next." 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner did not take steps to serve the respondent nos.6 to 8, as is evident from the office report dated 27.9.2025. 4. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition is for implementing the order dated 4.11.2023 passed in proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. In view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manbhavati v. 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 Revenue Court. It has been further submitted 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 WPIL No. 2357 of 2025 2 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." 6. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law. May 7, 2026 Anil WPIL No. 2357 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad