HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28079 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Tehsildar Tehsil Rudhauli District Basti (respondent No. 3) to take strict action upon the report of revenue officials in Case No. 178 of 2025 (Computrized Case No. T202517140400178 (State Vs. Bhagwandas) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by demolishing the illegal construction raised by respondent No. 4 over Gata No. 304/0.022 hectare area 0.010 situated at village Gandharia Faij, Tappa recorded as Road, and/or B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Collector, Basti (respondent No. 2) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. D. Allow the writ petition with cost throughout to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order has not been given effect. He submitted that petitioner has filed an application before the authority for the implementation of the order, but no steps has been taken by the authorities, as such authorities be directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chitrakul Vipinam Vasudev, Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Komal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that an order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by Tehsildar against the private respondent. 6. Under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, provision has been prescribed for implementation/execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such the writ petition cannot be entertained for implementation/execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that appropriate proceeding can be initiated as provided under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in accordance with law. September 9, 2026 Neetu WRIC No. 28079 of 2026 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad