Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73242 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13338 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Krishna @ Ram Kishan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Dwivedi,Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 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: "a.issue Writ, order nature of or direction in the mandamus directing the respondent no.2/ District Farrukhabad Magistrate District Rarrukhabd decide/consider the grievance of to the petitioner in pursuance of the appellate order dated 30.05.2015 passed by Additional Collector District Farrukhabad in appeal no.68/2014015 (Surendra Pal and others versus Gaon Sabha) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, b.issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner and his wife in revenue record of gata no.58 area 0.38 acre as Sankramaniy Bhumidhar in pursuance of the appellate order dated 30.05.2015 passed by Additional Collector District Farrukhabad in appeal no.68/2014015 (Surendra Pal and others versus Gaon Sabha). c.issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2025 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order dated 30.05.2015 has been passed by the Addl. Collector, Farrukhabad, but the same has not been given effect to. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner wants to get his name mutated on the basis of lease granted to the petitioner. It has been further contended by learned Standing Counsel 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 law. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 S. Singh (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad