Division Bench Rules That Orders Passed Under Section 67(3) Are Executed by Revenue Authorities Using Summary Procedures Prescribed in U.P. Revenue Code and Rules, 2016; Long-drawn Civil Procedure Code Execution Process Not Applicable
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench at Lucknow) in Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. (PIL No. 560 of 2026) clarified the procedure for execution and enforcement of orders passed under Section 67(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 67 are summary in nature and are to be executed by the very authority that issues them, in accordance with the specific mechanisms prescribed under the Code and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, thereby excluding the applicability of the long-drawn execution process as prescribed under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.
The case arose when the petitioner, Pooja Devi, approached the Court seeking enforcement of orders passed under Section 67(3) for eviction and removal of encroachments on Gram Panchayat land, essential for constructing a Khadanja (a water channel). The petitioner's counsel argued that if the execution application is processed under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, it would result in a protracted procedure akin to the one under Order XXI CPC, thereby causing delay and hardship.
The Court meticulously examined the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which empowers the Assistant Collector to evict wrongful occupants and recover compensation as arrears of land revenue. It highlighted subsection (3) of Section 67 which explicitly authorizes the use of necessary force for eviction and prescribes recovery of compensation through arrears of land revenue, indicating a self-contained mechanism for enforcement.
Further scrutiny of Rule 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, revealed detailed procedural safeguards, including the issuance of notices, inquiry by Assistant Collectors, and provisions for the protection of crops in case of wrongful cultivation. The Court noted that these rules, coupled with Chapter XII of the Code dealing with recovery of arrears, provide a comprehensive and efficient framework for execution.
Addressing the role of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, especially Paragraph 460, the Court observed that it applies only to the extent not inconsistent with the Code and Rules and primarily relates to processing execution applications. Paragraphs 137 and 138 of the Manual, which refer to certain provisions of Order XXI CPC, were held to have limited applicability restricted to procedural compliance and do not mandate a full-fledged CPC execution process.
The Court underscored Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which makes the provisions of CPC applicable only where expressly provided and not inconsistent with the Code. It further referred to Section 225-A and Rule 186, which reinforce that summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code exclude the application of CPC provisions, except for principles consistent with natural justice.
Rejecting the petitioner's apprehension of delayed enforcement through the Revenue Court Manual's execution route, the Court clarified that the statutory provisions envisage prompt and summary execution by the revenue authorities, including the use of force if necessary, without resorting to protracted civil execution procedures.
The judgment directs the State Government to reconsider Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual to ensure consistency with the U.P. Revenue Code and Rules, as the present manual's provisions create unnecessary confusion. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue the prescribed remedies under Section 67(3) for execution.
This ruling is a landmark clarification that affirms the summary nature of Section 67 proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and ensures expedited enforcement mechanisms without the procedural complexities of civil execution, thereby safeguarding the rights of local authorities to efficiently protect Gram Panchayat properties against encroachments.
Bottom Line:
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Execution of orders under Section 67(3) - Proceedings under Section 67 are summary in nature, and their execution/enforcement cannot follow the long-drawn process prescribed under Order XXI CPC. The mechanism for execution is provided within the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and its Rules, 2016.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Section 67(3), Section 214, Section 225-A, Section 234(3), Section 170-205 (Chapter XII), U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 Rule 67, Rule 186, U.P. Revenue Court Manual Paragraphs 137, 138, 460, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXI (limited applicability)
Pooja Devi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975209
