HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3025 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1.Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon sabha. 2.The instant Public interest litigation has been filed for the following relief: "(1). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi and Assistant Collector Ist Class/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi to compliance the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by respondent No.4 in Case No. T202416670500016 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Chhhavi Nath), Case No.T202416670500017 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Girdhari) and Case NoT202416670500019 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Bharat) U/S 67 U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order of eviction and damages passed against the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, the order has not been given effect on spot. He further submitted that proper direction be issued for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Jhuru Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) eviction of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 from the plot in question which is recorded as road in the revenue record. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that provisions has been made under Para-460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual for the implementation/ execution of the orders passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that order for ejectment and damages under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar on 30.09.2024 in respect to the plot in question. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of Para-460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual will be necessary which is 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." 8. In view of the provisions contained under Para-460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the public interest litigation for the implementation of the order passed under Section-67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be entertained. WPIL No. 3025 of 2025 2 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the Case, no interference is required. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed with liberty to initiate proper proceeding as prescribed under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in accordance with law. October 9, 2025 PS* WPIL No. 3025 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad