HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 830 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Writ C No. 39000 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge, on account of subsequent events during the pendency of the writ petition on noticing that the prayer made in the writ petition stood granted, disposed of the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent-petitioner seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to conclude the stone installation proceedings in view of order dated 22.08.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short 'the Code of 2006') within stipulated period. 3. When the matter came up before the Court, the Court required the officer concerned to file his personal affidavit, pursuant to which the personal affidavit was filed inter alia indicating the execution of the order dated 22.08.2023. The learned Single Judge, noticing the affidavit filed in this regard and the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had signed the spot memo being satisfied, disposed of the writ petition. 4. The appellant who was the contesting respondent in the writ petition, has filed the appeal inter alia questioning the maintainability of the writ petition itself. Submissions have been made that filing of a writ petition seeking execution of order passed by revenue authorities despite Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Janam Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jagdish Pathak, (S.C.), Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Manoj Kumar Dubey, Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Vipul Kumar Dubey Bajrang Bahadur Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 4 others .....Respondent(s) availability of mechanism under the Code of 2006, was not maintainable which principle has been repeatedly laid down by this Court and, therefore, the writ petition itself was liable to be dismissed. 5. When counsel for the appellant was put a query as to once the order passed by the revenue authority during the pendency of the writ petition stands executed even if the writ petition was not maintainable, whether any direction seeking to undo the execution can be passed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was dissatisfied with compliance which was produced by the authority before the learned Single Judge and wanted to contest the manner of execution of the order dated 22.08.2023, however, as the learned Single Judge has noticed the fact of the petitioner-respondent being satisfied and the prayer being granted, no competent court would adjudicate objections of the appellant to the manner of execution of the order dated 22.08.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the submissions made. It was submitted that besides the fact that the learned Single Judge has not passed any order except for noticing the compliance, it is submitted that the compliance has been made in terms of order dated 22.08.2023 and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The plea about the maintainability of the writ petition was required to be raised before the learned Single Judge. The fact that the Court on noticing the non compliance of the directions of the Court thought it appropriate to seek response from the concerned authority and on account of seeking response, execution of the order dated 22.08.2023 took place by itself cannot be a reason for this Court to pass any order in appeal so as to undo the action taken by the authorities pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2023 only on account of alleged non maintainability of the writ petition in the first instance, as submitted. 10. 10. So far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that none of the competent authorities would be looking into the objections of SPLA No. 830 of 2025 2 the appellant qua the manner of the execution of order dated 22.08.2023 is concerned, a bare perusal of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge reveals that except for noticing the fact of execution of the order and that the respondents herein/petitioner in the writ petition was satisfied with the same, the Court has not endorsed the manner of execution and, therefore, in case it is open for the petitioner to question the manner of execution of order dated 22.08.2023, he can always question the same and passing of the order dated 07.08.2025 in the circumstances of the case cannot deprive him of such right, if available, as such the apprehension has no basis. 11.With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. September 17, 2025 Sandeep/Jyotsana SPLA No. 830 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad