Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16059-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2055 of 2025 Petitioner :- Krishna Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anoop Kumar Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1.) Although, instructions have not been provided by the District Magistrate as to disposal of the representation alleging interference by the Police authorities, but without granting any further time in this regard we have heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anoop Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 9 and Shri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2.) The petitioners claim to have purchased the entire land bearing Gata No. 901 from the opposite party no. 5, who was the recorded tenure holder, vide sale deed dated 27.02.2019. The Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to an order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Registrar on an objection raised by the opposite party no. 9 regarding the execution of the said sale deed. 3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 9 says that an application for recall of the said order dated 13.02.2019 has been filed which is pending. The opposite party no. 9 is alleged to have sold off part of Gata No. 901 to a third person, and also claims to be in possession of the remaining part. The case of opposite party no. 9 is that he never sold the land in question to the petitioners. A suit for cancellation of the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the petitioners on 27.02.2019 is also pending consideration before the Civil Court. 4.) In the interregnum, the petitioners herein filed a suit for injunction against the opposite parties no. 9 to 13. Opposite parties no. 10 to 13 are the persons to whom part of Gata No. 901 was sold by the opposite party no. 9, as claimed. In the said suit for temporary injunction, a status quo order was passed on 05.08.2024 i.e. temporary injunction matter was disposed of finally, against which a miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the opposite party no. 9 which was dismissed on 04.12.2024. The suit bearing number 833 / 2024 is still pending adjudication. The allegation of the petitioners is that the Police authorities are preventing the petitioners, who are in possession, from harvesting the sugarcane crop. 5.) On being confronted, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 9 submitted that his client has not challenged the order passed on 04.12.2024 in the miscellaneous appeal arising out of the temporary injunction order. It being so, and there being a prima facie finding in the temporary injunction order dated 05.08.2024 regarding possession of the petitioners, we fail to understand as to what locus does the Police have to interfere in the matter except in an eventuality where there is a law and order problem, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of any crime or it has actually been committed or there is order of any court to be complied or there are other valid grounds in any law/statue for their interference. 6.) We have also taken into consideration the orders dated 30.10.2024 passed on the application of the petitioners under Section 151 wherein the Police authorities have been directed to maintain status quo, wherein also, the order dated 05.08.2024 has been taken into consideration where there is a prima facie finding regarding possession of the petitioners. 7.) In this view of the matter, without prejudice to the right of the defendants in the aforesaid suit bearing number 833 / 2024, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation / direction that Police officials can interfere in such matters only if there is a law and order problem, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of any crime or it has actually been committed or there is order of any court to be complied or there are other valid grounds in any law/statue for their interference. 8.) A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda for insuring compliance. 9.) If the opposite party no. 9 or any other person who has locus in the matter wants to challenge the orders passed in the miscellaneous appeal arising out of the temporary injunction matter, our order will not come in the way, and our order will be subject to any orders being passed in such proceedings, if initiated. Order Date :- 19.3.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench