Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8608-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1178 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikhar Raj Singh,Aparna Mehrotra,Mohd.Gulfam Siraj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Sri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the opposite party No.6 today in the Court, which is taken on record. Heard. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession of Gata No.967 by the opposite party No.6 in connivance with the official opposite parties. A suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking injunction against the opposite party No.6, during its pendency the aforesaid interference is being made. As regard the opposite party No.6 if a suit has been filed, remedy can be sought by the petitioner in the said proceeding. At this stage, counsel for the opposite party No.6 says that the consequent to the demarcation exercise, possession has been given to his client of his share in land aforesaid as he is a co-tenure holder. However, on being asked as to how in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, the co-tenure holder could be given possession of his share without partition having taken place, he fairly admitted that no partition had taken place. Infact on further query what comes out is that there is no final order under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and infact no proceedings have been registered under the said provision, consequently, no notice has been given to the petitioner or any other affected party. Even otherwise if there is a dispute regarding possession between co-tenure holders then the remedy is not under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 nor by way of demarcation but only by way of partition or such other remedy as may be prescribed, as, demarcation under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 is only of the boundary of the Gata and not of the share of the co-tenure holders. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the police officials/revenue officials not to interfere with the status quo as is existing with regard to the Gata No.967 and they should leave the co-tenure holders of the Gata to seek appropriate remedy whether it be under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 or under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 if the consolidation operations have already commenced or before the civil court as the case may be, however, subject to the caveat i.e. if there is any law and order situation, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of crime or the crime has been actually committed or there is any order of the Court to be complied with or if there is any other ground for valid interference then the authorities can interfere but only to that extent. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench