Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87939 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16477 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarfaraz Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Rajesh 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. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to provide the possession to the petitioner over the land of Khata No.00083 Gata No.204 measuring area 0.130 hect. situated in Village Patti Muhammad @ Kajipura, Pargana & Tehsil- Ghosi, District-Mau as per order dated 12.06.2024 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.RST/01698/2019, Computerized Case No.T201915510201698 (Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs. Madeena and others), under Section-116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed but the possession has not been given. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that orders passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are executable as provisions of CPC are applicable. Further 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 petitioners to pursue the remedy as available to them under law. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Priya (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad