The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proceedings under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, regarding boundary disputes, cannot be treated as “concluded” merely upon the passing of a demarcation order. The Court held that the proceedings are finalized only when the physical affixation of boundary marks and restoration of possession are carried out on the spot. Hearing a batch of writ petitions alleging systemic inaction by revenue authorities, the Court issued a comprehensive set of eleven guidelines to ensure the effective enforcement of demarcation orders.
Background of the Case
The Court was seized of a batch of writ petitions, with the lead case being Meena Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Writ-C No. 35470 of 2025). The common grievance raised by the petitioners was the non-execution of final demarcation orders passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In the lead matter, the petitioner, Meena Devi, a recorded bhumidhar of land in District Prayagraj, had obtained a final order for demarcation on January 2, 2024, after due inquiry and confirmation of the Revenue Inspector’s report. Despite the order attaining finality and repeated notices issued for demarcation, the authorities failed to execute the order on the ground of non-availability of police force. Similar grievances were raised in the connected petitions, where final orders remained unexecuted despite the expiry of statutory limitation periods for appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the summary proceedings under Section 24 had culminated in final orders in their favor, the statutory authorities had failed to execute them. It was argued that the respondents adopted “obstructive tactics” and failed to discharge their duties, rendering the entire judicial process ineffective. The petitioners contended that the inaction was arbitrary and illegal, causing them “grave hardship and irreparable loss.”
The State-respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, contended that the Code provides an exhaustive procedure under Section 24 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. It was submitted that the State Government, acknowledging the issue of non-execution, had issued a Circular dated December 16, 2025. This circular mandates physical verification of demarcation and strict action against officers who consign files to records without ensuring actual demarcation on the spot.
Court’s Analysis
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava analyzed the statutory scheme of Section 24 of the Code, 2006, and Rule 22 of the Rules, 2016. The Court observed that Section 24 provides a speedy remedy for boundary disputes and expressly empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to evict a person in wrongful possession and restore it to the lawful occupant, using necessary force if required.
The Court noted that the SDO exercises both quasi-judicial and administrative functions. The Bench observed:
“In administrative law terms, effective enforcement is integral to the exercise of quasi-judicial power. An order which is not implemented on the spot reduces the entire proceeding to a paper exercise and defeats the legislative intent.”
The Court emphasized that the power under Section 24 is not confined to mere adjudication but includes enforcement powers. It stated that limiting the jurisdiction to passing orders without ensuring compliance would render the statutory mechanism “otiose.”
Decision and Guidelines
The Court disposed of the writ petitions by formulating eleven broad guidelines to ensure the effective implementation of Section 24 orders. The key guidelines are as follows:
- Pre-Adjudication: Applications must strictly comply with Rule 22 (submission of updated khatauni, details of contiguous gatas, etc.) before proceedings commence. The SDO must register the case in the Revenue Court Computerised Management System (RCCMS) on the same or next working day.
- Demarcation & Inquiry: Demarcation shall be completed within a month from the date of the order. The report must be submitted to the SDO within a week of preparation.
- Execution and Possession: The SDO must put the person “best entitled” in possession or restore possession to a wrongfully dispossessed person. A written requisition for police force is mandatory where resistance is apprehended.
- Post-Execution Compliance: A compliance report detailing pillar locations and possession status must be prepared, accompanied by geo-tagged photographs (GPS-enabled). This verification report must be uploaded to the RCCMS portal.
- Expeditious Disposal of Appeals: Mere filing of an appeal before the Commissioner does not operate as an automatic stay. Execution must continue unless an express interim stay is granted.
- Interim Protection: Pending inquiry, the SDO may pass interim orders maintaining status quo or restraining illegal construction.
- Conclusion of Proceedings:
“An application under Section 24 is not to be treated to be ‘decided’ and proceedings not ‘concluded’ unless affixation of boundary marks consequent to the order under the section has been made on the spot. The file is not to be consigned to the record room unless a physical verification report with geo-tagged photograph is uploaded.” - Accountability: Persistent delay or willful failure to execute orders will invite departmental action against officials.
Directions
The Court directed the Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure statewide circulation of these guidelines.
Regarding the petitioners, the Court directed the concerned SDOs:
“forthwith to execute all subject orders in the instant batch of writ petition, within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, strictly as per approved site memo/demarcation report, by ensuring affixation of boundary marks and also possession restoration, wherever required.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Meena Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others (and connected matters)
- Case No: Writ-C No. 35470 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- Counsel for Petitioners: Rohit Pandey, Azad Rai, and others
- Counsel for Respondents: Manish Goyal (Additional Advocate General), J.N. Maurya (CSC), Abhishek Shukla (ACSC)
