Ram Badal v. State of U.P Thru. Secy., Revenue and Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9166 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Badal Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy., Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the concerned Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already having an order of demarcation in his favour and now Area Lekhpal alongwith certain persons are trying to interfere in petitioner's peaceful possession. By virtue of Section 4 (16), U.P. Revenue Code,2006 is defined as under:- "Revenue Court" means all or any of the following authorities (that is to say) the Board and all Members thereof, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, [Chief Revenue Officers, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers, Tahsildar, Tahsildars (Judicial) and Naib-Tahsildars;] Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that there is a complete mechanism for the execution of the orders passed by the revenue courts under Section 214 of U.P. Revenue Code,2006 read with para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Mannual. The respective provisions are extracted here under;- "214. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Limitation Act,1963-Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to every suit, application or proceedings under this Code.

¶460Execution 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. " In the case of Ajab Lal vs. Rakesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. reported in 2007 Alld. pg 158, the position as regards execution of orders passed by the Revenue courts was dealt with and it was held that the revenue courts itself are possessed with such a jurisdiction. On the same very analogy, we permit the petitioner to institute an appropriate proceeding before the revenue court and in case any such proceedings are instituted, the competent court shall proceed in accordance with law and finalise the execution proceedings without any delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Manish Kumar,J) (Vivek Chaudhary,J) Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Ashish High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench