HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2791 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The writ Court on 20.08.2024 while granting an interim order in Writ-C No. 24958 of 2024 passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:- "I Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorarti call for original record and quash the impugned orders dated 26.02.2016 and 3.5.2024 respectively passed by respondents. II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 29.02.2016 and 03.05.2024 respectively passed by the respondents, treating that the impugned orders have never been passed in accordance with law and petitioners has become Bhumidhar of disputed land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.12.2010 executed by late Sahdei wife of late Sukku and her legal heir after receiving consideration has been rightly mutated in the revenue record in accordance with law." 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that since controversy involved in the present case is identical to a case being Writ-C No.20779 of 2024 (Smt. Sahbai Alias Sahdeir Dead Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) in which interim order was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.7.2024. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Munna Patel .....Applicant(s) Sugni Devi, And Another .....Opposite Party(s) same relief. 3. The order dated 2.7.2024, passed in Writ-C No.20779 of 2024 (Smt. Sahbai Alias Sahdeir Dead Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) is quoted as under:- "1. Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 7. 2. The orders passed in mutation proceedings have been challenged in the present writ petition. It is contended that initially the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order in the year 2009 in favour of the petitioner holding that the will produced by other side could not be proved beyond suspicion and that the first court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question as regards successiorship. The said order was challenged in the appeal by the respondent no. 5. The Additional District Magistrate (Second) Varanasi by the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 has set aside the same, which order has been further affirmed in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Varanasi by second order impugned dated 03.05.2024 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner. 3. Submission is that the appellate and revisional authorities have entered into an adjudication which was beyond their competence and neither adjudication of relationship of the parties nor validity of divorce or marriage or successiorship was under their competence. As such disputed questions could be decided only in regular proceedings, which have not yet been initiated by the either side. 4. The matter requires consideration. 5. Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 and 6 returnable within six weeks. Steps be taken by registered post acknowledgment due within ten days. 6. Respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit, if any. 7. List on 04.09.2024 before the appropriate Bench. 8. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 26.02.2016 and 03.05.2024 respectively passed in appeal and revision shall remain stayed and the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the nature and possession over the property in dispute. " CAPL No. 2791 of 2026 2 4. Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of State- respondents. 5. Issue notice to respondent nos.6 & 7. 6. All the respondents are granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks', thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. 7. List and connect this petition along with the record of Writ-C No.20779 of 2024 on 09.12.2024. 8. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 26.02.2016 and 03.05.2024 respectively passed in appeal and revision shall remain stayed and the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the nature and possession over the property in dispute." 2. From perusal of the order, it is clear that order passed in appeal and revision was stayed by writ Court and further the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sale-deed has been executed by opposite party during pendency of the writ petition. 4. This Court finds that there is no restrain order as regards alienation of the property and there is no averment that applicant has been dispossessed from the property in dispute and order of status quo has been violated. 5. No case for contempt is made out at this stage. 6. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) CAPL No. 2791 of 2026 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad