Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Meena Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. - 35470 of 2025 Along with Writ - C No. 35324 of 2025, Writ - C No. 38105 of 2025, Writ - C No. 39356 of 2025, Writ - C No. 39643 of 2025, Writ - C No. 40027 of 2025, Writ - C No. 40164 of 2025, Writ - C No. 40165 of 2025, Writ - C No. 35626 of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025
For the Petitioners: Rohit Pandey.
For the Respondent: Azad Rai, C.S.C.
The statutory power to resolve boundary disputes includes both quasi-judicial adjudication and mandatory administrative enforcement. The physical demarcation and restoration of possession are integral aspects of the inquiry; failure to implement these final orders constitutes a neglect of statutory duty that frustrates the objective of speedy resolution.
Headnote:(A) Revenue Code - Section 24 - Rules, 2016 - Rule 22 - Boundary dispute - Summary inquiry - Execution of orders - Scope of statutory authority - Non-execution of final orders due to administrative inaction - The authority is empowered to restore possession and fix boundaries as part of the summary process - Possession and enforcement are integral parts of the statutory remedy - Delay in execution frustrates the legislative intent of a speedy summary procedure. (Paras 13, 18, 27, 29, 31, 42.4)
(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial powers - Procedural requirements - When powers are conferred for a summary resolution, failure to execute the final order acts as a denial of justice - Competent authorities must follow the mandate of physical verification using photographic evidence and maintain strict accountability for non-compliance. (Paras 40, 41, 42.1, 42.4, 43)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners in multiple instances faced persistent failure by administrative authorities to execute finalized boundary demarcation orders. Despite the conclusion of formal inquiries, site inspections, and the issuance of final orders confirming boundaries and possession rights, the authorities failed to implement the decisions, citing lack of resources or procedural delays, leaving the petitioners without their entitled relief.
Findings of Court:
The court observed a systemic failure by the revenue authorities to enforce final boundary orders. It held that the statutory framework mandates not only the adjudication of disputes but also the effective enforcement via physical demarcation and restoration of possession. These orders remain binding and enforceable regardless of unrelated pending proceedings.
Issues: (1) Whether the non-execution of final demarcation orders constitutes a failure of statutory and administrative duty. (2) The scope of authority regarding the restoration of possession and physical border fixation within summary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory mechanism for boundary resolution is inclusive of both quasi-judicial adjudication and administrative enforcement. Actual physical demarcation and the restoration of possession are mandatory integral components of the process; therefore, administrative inaction in executing authorized demarcation warrants judicial intervention to ensure adherence to the legislative object of speedy and effective dispute resolution.
Result: Petitions disposed of with binding directions for the execution of all subject orders within four weeks, coupled with a mandate to follow strict enforcement protocols.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of writ petitions concerning non-execution of final demarcation orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. analysis of statutory duties and state's procedural obligations for boundary demarcation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. interpretation of section 24 and rule 22 procedural requirements for summary boundary adjudication. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. principles governing administrative and quasi-judicial powers in revenue law compliance. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 5. guidelines formulated to ensure timely enforcement of demarcation and possession orders. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 6. final judicial directions for statewide policy implementation and specific order execution. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard S/Sri Rohit Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Singh, holding brief of Digamber Dwivedi, Munna Tiwari along with Sandeep Kumar Singh, Dharamdas, Vijay Bahadur Yadav, Anoop Kumar Sharma, Anurag Shukla along with Shubham Dwivedi, Raj Kumar Shukla and Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing along with Sri J N Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present batch of writ petitions raises a common grievance pertaining to non-execution of demarcation orders passed under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, [Code, 2006], notwithstanding the fact that such orders have attained finality after due inquiry, submission of reports, and issuance of notices to the concerned parties.
3. The lead matter, being Writ-C No. 35470 of 2025 (Meena Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), typifies the nature of the controversy involved in the present set of petitions.
Factual Matrix
4. The factual background of the cases and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, as reflected from the pleadings, are being set out hereinbelow:
Writ-C No.35470 of 2025 : Meena Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
4.1 Petitioner is a recorded bhumidhar with transferable rights of land bearing Gata No.606, ad measuring 0.0240 hectare, situate in Village Ustapur Naika, Jhunsi, District Prayagraj. The petitioner’s title and possession over the said land stand duly recorded in the khatauni of fasli years 1429-1434, evidencing her lawful rights.
4.2 Over a period of time, the boundaries of the aforesaid plot became damaged and indistinct, resulting in recurring disputes between the petitioner and adjoining land cultivators regarding the exact boundary line.
4.3 In order to resolve the boundary dispute lawfully, the petitioner along with other co-tenure holders instituted proceedings under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 for demarcation of boundaries before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, District Prayagraj. The case was registered as Case No. 191 of 2024 (Computerized No. T202402030200191) titled Meena Devi and others vs. Gram Sabha and others.
4.4 During the said proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Revenue Inspector, who conducted a spot inspection in the presence of all concerned parties and submitted a demarcation report along with a map dated 28.11.2022.
4.5 On the basis of the said report, notices were issued to all concerned parties inviting objections. Despite due opportunity, no objections were filed by any party, and all stakeholders were aware of the demarcation proceedings.
4.6 After considering the material on record, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, allowed the application vide order dated 02.01.2024, confirming the demarcation report and map dated 28.11.2022, and directed the Tehsildar, Phoolpur, to execute the demarcation by installing permanent boundary stones.
4.7 In compliance of the said order, the Revenue Inspector issued notice dated 12.10
