HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6076 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in P.I.L. No. 3689 of 2025, order whereof is quoted herein under:- "1. Heard Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.2 to 4 to take legal steps against the encroacher/Respondent no.6 for removal of the encroachment nuisance and obstruction over the public utility land bearing Arazi No.411Mi. Area 0.4240 hectare (New Arazi No.1224) and Arazi No.409 Area 0.0010 hectare (Juj part 0.0280 hectare) situated in Village Chauradeeh, Tehsil Chayal, Police Station- Charwa, District-Kaushambi and same has been recorded in revenue record as Pond and to restore the status of pond in its original nature, within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in compliance of orders dated 03.11.2023, 19.09.2025 & 15.10.2025 passed by Revenue Authorities itself;" 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the Tehsildar for ejectment and damages against private respondent, in respect to the plot in question, in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order has not been given effect on the spot. He submitted that appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed by the appellate court. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mahendra Prasad .....Applicant(s) Sanjay Dubey And Another .....Opposite Party(s) from the plot in question. 4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the instant public interest litigation for implementation/execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by the Tehsildar in respect to the plot in question in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order of Tehsildar has been maintained in appeal. 7. For execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, remedy is provided under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as such, the instant P.I.L. cannot be maintained for implementation/execution of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. The P.I.L. is accordingly dismissed with observation that proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in accordance with law." 2. A bare look of the order would reveal that in view of the remedy provided under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, the P.I.L. was dismissed and it was left open for the applicant to initiate proceedings under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Manual. In case the allegation of the applicant is that the case has not been registered or it has not been decided as per the mandate of the statute, then it is for the applicant to take appropriate proceedings while seeking a direction for expeditious disposal in that regard. A contempt would not lie. 3. Accordingly, the Contempt Application is consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicant to take appropriate remedies as permissible under law. September 8, 2026 N.S.Rathour CAPL No. 6076 of 2026 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad