SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - B No. - 1880 of 2026

Sunil Kumar
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Deepak Singh, Harish Chandra Singh,
                                  Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C., Rahul Anand Gaur, Rakesh
                                  Pathak

Court No. - 55
                      HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Harish
Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rakesh Pathak for the respondent no.6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of
respondent no.2 dated 27.2.2026 passed in Misc. Application No.0262 of
2026 filed in Second Appeal No.4841 of 2025, pending before it, for
violation of the interim orders dated 10.11.2025 and 10.12.2025 passed in
the aforesaid second appeal.

3. Facts of the case, as borne out from the writ petition, are that a suit for
division of holding was filed by the respondent no.6, in which a
preliminary decree dated 30.9.2024 was prepared determining 1/2 share
each of the petitioner and the respondent no.6. Pursuant to the preliminary
decree, Qurras were prepared and final decree was passed on 2.1.2025.
The order dated 2.1.2025 and the final decree was challenged in appeal
under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the
Commissioner of the Division. The Additional Commissioner, Kanpur
Division, Kanpur dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by the order
and decree dated 29.10.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decrees, the
                                                        WRIB No. 1880 of 2026
                               2


petitioner filed second appeal No.4841 of 2025 before the respondent
no.2, which was admitted by the order dated 10.11.2025 and the operation
of the decrees of the courts below were stayed. On an application moved
in the aforesaid second appeal, another order dated 10.12.2025 was
passed directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. The
petitioner/appellant of the aforesaid second appeal moved an application
purported to be under paragraph 460/494 of the U.P. Revenue Court
Manual with a prayer that the contesting respondent/respondent no.6 in
the present petition is violating the interim orders passed in second appeal
dated 10.11.2025 and 10.12.2025, and therefore, they are liable to be
punished. The aforesaid application has been decided by the order of the
respondent no.2 dated 27.2.2026, which is the subject matter of challenge
in the present petition.

4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that despite
the fact that police report regarding raising of construction by the
respondent no.6 was on the record, the respondent no.2 has erred in
rejecting the application of the petitioner for violation of the interim
orders passed in it. It has been further contended that the respondent no.2
erred in directing the petitioner from not interfering in the running of the
Brick Kiln by the respondent no.6, which was beyond the prayer made by
the petitioner in its application.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.6
has contended that the application filed by petitioner itself was not
maintainable, as the Board of Revenue is a Tribunal and not a court of
record, therefore, it has no power under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act to punish a party violating the interim orders passed by it. He
has further contended that as the respondent no.6 has appeared in second
appeal and filed his objection, the said application could not be
considered as an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for violation
of order of the interim injunction. It has been further contended that there
is no evidence on record to show that the respondent no.6 has raised any
construction other than the existing Brick Kiln, which is continuously
being run since 2010, prior to filing of the suit for division of holding.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
                                                        WRIB No. 1880 of 2026
                                  3


parties and perused the record.

7. Perusal of the application dated 12.1.2026 moved by petitioner before
the respondent no.2 has been filed under paragraph 460 of the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual, which is a provision for execution of the orders
passed by the revenue authorities under the Revenue Code and the other
land laws of the State. It does not grant any jurisdiction on the Board of
Revenue to punish the parties for violation of the interim orders passed by
it. The provisions of Paragraph 494 referred by the respondent no.2 in its
order dated 27.2.2026 relates to expediting the proceedings pending
before the various revenue authorities for early disposal of the
appeals/revisions pending before him. Thus, it is evident that the
application filed by the petitioner was misconceived.

8. The report of Lekhpal dated 23.12.2025 and the police report relied
upon by the petitioner state that construction is going on on the spot.
However, the said reports do not refer to the nature of construction going
on on the spot. The photographs annexed by the petitioner alongwith the
present writ petition as Annexure-7 also show that the Brick Kiln is
running over the plot in dispute and no other construction exists over it.

9. In my opinion, if an order directing the status quo is granted by the
court, it does not intent to stop all activities going on on the plot in
dispute. In fact, it means that the activity, as was going on on the date the
said injunction order was passed, shall continue without interference by
either of the parties. The aforesaid observation of the respondent no.2 in
the order dated 27.2.2026 restraining the petitioner from not interfering in
the running of Brick Kiln of the respondent no.6 is justified and does not
require any interference. Admittedly the Brick Kiln exists on the land of
the respondent no.6 and the share of the petitioner was given on rent to
the respondent no.6 for running the Brick Kiln, which is not denied. The
petitioner cannot restrain the respondent no.6 from running the Brick Kiln
in the garb of the interim injunction granted by the respondent no.2,
directing the parties to maintain status quo. Even if the lease of tenancy
has expired, the order directing the status quo would not affect the
determination of contract entered between the petitioner and the
respondent no.6.
                                                                                           WRIB No. 1880 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Anil




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad