IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 324 of 2001 Dharma S/o Latoor R/o Village Chudiala Mohanpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar .……… Petitioner Versus 1. Neeraj S/O Yaspal 2. Sudhir S/o Ravi Dutt 3. Birendra @ Bindu S/o Shiv Dutt 4. Trilok S/o Bisambar All R/o Village Chudila Mohanpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar .……… Respondents Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bindu Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bindu Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This is a Contempt Petition moved by the petitioner alleging therein that Khasra No. 444M measuring 2 bighas has been under the possession of the petitioner for the last twenty years. The petitioner had acquired the rights of Bhumidhari land over the land in dispute by the operation of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. The respondent No.1 and one another Sanjay preferred an appeal u/s 11 (1) of the C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer against the order dated 15.04.1998. The S.O.C. allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the Revision before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation / Collector Haridwar which was also dismissed by the D.D.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the writ petition before the court and this Court on 16.10.2001 directed the parties to maintain the status quo till the next date of listing. In the meantime, the said order was served upon respondents and the respondents started threatening the petitioner to evict from their Chak inspite of the status quo passed by the Court on 16.10.2001. 3. Counter affidavit was filed denying all the allegations made in the petition and it was alleged that the respondents are in possession of the land in dispute and the contempt petition is not maintainable. It was further alleged that the said land is recorded as a nala. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parities and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate me by any evidence who was in possession of the land on the date of the dispute. If it was not revealed from the record who was in possession of the land in dispute before passing of the status quo order, there cannot be said to be any contempt of the order. No prayer has been sought to appoint the Commissioner to make a spot inspection and to submit the report of the facts leading to the possession at the spot. Apart this, the petitioner has not annexed the copy of the order by which the status quo order has been filed. Learned counsel for the parties could not demonstrate that any such order is annexed with the petition. 6. In view of the above, the contempt petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 21.04.2008 Shiv