Allahabad High Court
Dhruv Sethi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43633
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8757 of 2025
Petitioner :- Dhruv Sethi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Shruti Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard the petitioner in person, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, respondent No.3 to take necessary action in compliance of the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by learned court of SDM, Behat, Saharanpur in Case No. 8663 of 2021 (Computerised Case No. T202109600208663) titled "Dhruv Sethi Vs. Ronki" under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if possible, within some stipulated period to meet the ends of justice."
3. From the perusal of writ petition and arguments made by the petitioner, it is apparent that an order dated 09.06.2022 has been passed by S.D.M. in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the same has not been given effect to.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that 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 the petitioner get the order dated 09.06.2022 executed as the same amounts to decree and the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to it.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted 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."
6. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move execution application before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance.
8. It is further provided that in case, any such application moved by the petitioner for execution, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 26.3.2025
Ved Prakash
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
