Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22308-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21874 of 2018 Petitioner :- Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan Thru. Mukhtar- A-Aam Mohd. S Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kr. Misra,Lakkhi Chand Tyagi,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Rakesh Pratap Singh,Shiv Shanker Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 5 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Raj Bakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing for the State and Shri Shiv Shankar Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 10. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that Khatedars were in possession of their share of land prior to passing of the order of attachment dated 11.07.2018 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and it is these proceedings which have been quashed by the High Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2023 on the ground that the proceedings could not continue in view of the status quo order by the Board of Revenue in the Revision filed by the petitioner, on 05.01.2023. 4. The case of the petitioner is that whatever the status quo prior to 11.07.2018 will have to be maintained, as, the change of the status by any order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. stands quashed by the judgment of the High Court rendered on 21.07.2023 in proceedings under Section 482 bearing No. 6461 of 2019. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 10 states that he has purchased the land falling in the share of Akhtar who has not been impleaded herein as opposite party. The other Khatedar have also not been impleaded. 6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Rai, S.D.M., Jamunaha, District - Shrawasti is present. He says that prior to 11.07.2018 all the Khatedars were in possession of their share of the land, therefore, he has no difficulty in passing an order to that effect, if this Court so orders. 7. Considering the facts of this case we dispose of this writ petition as under:- (i) Whatever the status quo in respect to the land in question prior to 11.07.2018 that will have to be maintained under the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 05.01.2023. If the Khatedars were in possession of their share of the land or whatever extent they were in possession, they will have to be put back in possession. (ii) If the opposite party no. 10 has purchased any land forming part of any Khatedar, then, he will have to be put in possession in respect of the said part which may fall in the share of the vendor, namely, Akhtar, unless the latter disputes this fact and there is any legal impediment. (iii) The above arrangement shall remain subject to final decision in the Second Appeal bearing No. 2134 of 2022 which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018 passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the First Appellate order dated 23.08.2022, wherein, the aforesaid status quo order is operating. (iv) The Board of Revenue is directed to dispose of Second Appeal No. 2134 of 2024 positively within a period of one year. (v) It is made clear that the opposite party no. 10 shall not be entitled to claim possession of any portion of the land which is subject matter of Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue beyond the share of the vendor Khatedar Late Akhtar and the land over which he was/is in possession. (vi) All this arrangement is subject to final decision in the Board of Revenue. We have not entered into nor adjudicated the rights and interest of the parties in respect of the land in question which was the subject matter of the partition suit and is now subject of matter of the Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. (vii) As partition has not actually taken place by metes and bounds in pursuance to the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018 which is already subjudice before the Board of Revenue, therefore, if at all, the sale consideration from the sale of paddy crop during pendency of the said proceedings has been deposited in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the petitioner can initiate separate proceedings for the same. (viii) The petitioner's counsel and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 10 have consented to this order without prejudice to their rights in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. (ix) The benefit of this order shall be available to all the Khatedars including those who are not before us. (x) This arrangement itself will not give any right in favour of any Khatedars to claim specific portion of the land in question in the Second Appeal pending before the Board of Revenue arising out of the partition suit and it shall be open for the Board of Revenue to consider the matter as per law. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench