IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLCON No. 16 of 2008 Mohd. Hanif …..Applicant. Versus Sukhdeo Singh and another. …..Respondents. Present : Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that there has been a violation of the interim order dated 6.8.1999 by which dispossession of the petitioner was stayed from the disputed land. The order dated 6.8.1999 was passed by a learned Single in Writ Petition No. 32647 of 1999, Mohd. Hanif & others Vs. Prescribed Authority & others, which was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The order dated 6.8.1999 reads as under:- “Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time for filing a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the Writ Petition for admission/final disposal after expiry of the aforesaid period. Untill further orders of the Court the operation of the orders dated 28.05.1999 and 9.2.1999 (Annexure 10 and 9 respectively to the Writ Petition) shall remain stayed. The dispossession of the petitioners from the land allotted to them is also stayed.” Subsequently thereafter the matter stood transferred to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and re-numbered as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2999 of 2001 which was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 20.6.2002. Thereafter an SLP was filed against the above order and the matter was remanded to this Court vide order dated 14.11.2003 of the Apex Court. In sum and substance, it was directed that the appellants be impleded as parties to the proceedings as and when writ petition before the High Court stands restored to its original file and the matter shall be dealt with afresh in accordance with law after hearing and considering the claims of all the parties concerned. 2 Statement has been made at the bar that subsequently the matter was dismissed as infructuous on 5.8.2008. On this admitted position of law, the petitioner has now filed this contempt petition saying states that he has been dispossessed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner states that there is hence a clear breach of the order dated 6.8.1999. In the considered view of this Court, there is no jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the contempt petition as this order was not passed by this Court. The contempt petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notices, if any, are also discharged. No order as to costs. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue any other legal remedy available to him. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.9.2010 Kuldeep