Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9369 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 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;] The order sought to be executed by a writ of mandamus in the present case is passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Beekapur, District Ayodhya. The question is as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable for the execution of an order passed by the revenue court. 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