Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18799-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3221 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amol Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Prashant Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.5 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Ishwar Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. There is a civil suit filed by the opposite party No.5 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of Gata No.410 and 411 situated at Gram-Hadauri, Pargana-Deva, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki. The petitioner of course claims his rights in respect of part of Gata No.608 Minjumla, however, it appears that there is some dispute as to whether the part over which the petitioner claims his rights is part of Gata No.608 Minjumla or Gata No.410 and 411. No temporary injunction has been granted as yet by the civil court to the opposite party No.5. 4. Be that as it may, the course of action is to pursue the said civil proceedings and seek temporary injunction instead an application was submitted by the opposite party No.5 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, District-Barabanki on 07.03.2025 alleging illegal construction on his plot. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, District-Barabanki made an endorsement on his application, on the administrative side, to the Station House Officer, Kotwali Nagar, District-Barabanki to ensure status quo for the purposes of maintenance of law and order till final orders are passed. We fail to understand as to under which provision of law the Sub Divisional Magistrate could have done so, on such an application, on the administrative side. One could understand, if any proceedings were being drawn under any provision such as under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 164 of B.N.S.S., 2023) or any other provision of law but then it should have been referred, nothing has been said as to the provisions of law. One could understand, if a proceedings for demarcation had been ordered with reference to Section 24 of the Code, 2006 and the corresponding rules, if the same was applicable, but, without doing so, such a cryptic order on the administrative side cannot be sustained in law. There are several government orders on the subject which also prohibit the revenue/administrative officials from interfering in such disputes, we, therefore, quash the said order, however, we make it clear that this will not amount to adjudicating any right either of the petitioner or the opposite party No.5. Opposite party No.5 is at liberty to seek such order as he deems necessary in the civil proceedings initiated by him or to initiate such other proceeding as may be permissible uninfluenced by our order. It is also open for the opposite party No.5 to initiate proceedings for demarcation of his gatas without prejudice to his rights in the suit for permanent injunction and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered as per law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench