Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57032 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2796 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :- "Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Case No. 2979 of 2024 (Sanoj Kumar versus Ram Pratap Singh and another), under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Nayab Tehsildar Talgram, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj in Case No.8100 of 2023 (Ram Pratap Singh versus Vijay Bahadur) under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition). B) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and directing them not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the basis of sale deed dated 21.10.2023 during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court." 3. Mutation proceedings were started on the basis of a sale deed executed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5. To the said proceedings, petitioner filed his objections stating therein that civil suit is pending where an order of status quo has been passed by the Trial Court, therefore, respondent No.4 has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.5. Objections filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Naib Tehsildar. Against the said order, petitioner has filed a revision before the Tehsildar and the same has also been dismissed. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that because an order of status quo is operating regarding property in dispute, therefore, respondent No.4, who is the recorded tenure holder, has no right to execute the sale deed. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the suit in question in which the order of status quo has been passed, neither respondent No.4 nor respondent No.5 are parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the order passed in a suit for injunction against the State Authorities will disentitle the respondent No.4 to execute the sale deed. 7. Be that as it may, no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025/Rishabh Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad