Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59944 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12011 of 2025 Petitioner :- Syed Ahmad Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondents authority to take the appropriate action against the respondent No.5, in compliance Of the order dated 17.3.2025 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.6124 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T202415090706124) Goan Sabha U.P.Revenue Vs. Usmanul Code, 2006 Hasan, U/s and 67 remove of the illegal encroachment of the Kabristan Arazi No.739 Rakba 0.028 Hectare, of the respondent No.5 and recover the imposed damages/fine No.5, within from specific interest of justice.." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order dated 17.3.2025 has been passed by respondent No.3 but the same has not been given effect to. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection by means of present writ petition, petitioner wants to get the order executed passed by the Revenue Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that 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 petitioners have 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 pursue the remedy as available to him under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad