1. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and MR. Abhishek Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Hodler for the State.

3. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to ensure protection of the life, liberty and property of the petitioner, his staff members, children and young girls residing in the premises from the alleged illegal acts of respondent nos. 5 to 10. It is further prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to prevent respondent nos. 5 to 10, who are alleged to be acting in connivance with respondent nos. 1 to 4, from interfering with the peaceful possession and management of the property in question. The petitioner further alleges that the male members of his staff have been forcibly evicted from the premises and are being prevented from entering the property. An interim direction has also been sought for ensuring adequate police protection to the petitioner, his staff members and the occupants of the premises, and for restraining the private respondents from taking law into their own hands.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent no. 5, namely, Saira Wadra, along with others, has instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the rights and possession over the property in dispute are directly in issue and the said suit is still pending adjudication. It is submitted that the learned Civil Judge, Kichha vide order dated 11.06.2026, while granting temporary injunction, restrained the defendants, their servants, agents and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land comprised in Khata Nos. and Gata Nos. 138 (area 0.1850 hectare), 139 (area 0.0630 hectare), 1/2 Min. (area 0.1804 hectare), 182 (area 0.5470 hectare), together with Gata Nos. 133 (area 0.676 hectare), 134 (area 0.404 hectare), 135 (area 1.216 hectare), 136/2 (area 0.065 hectare), 130 (area 0.2709 hectare), 173 (area 0.270 hectare), 174 (area 0.067 hectare), 175 (area 0.046 hectare), 176 (area 0.110 hectare), 177 (area 0.0200 hectare), 178 (area 0.1380 hectare) and 129/1 (area 0.7400 hectare), situated in Village Pipaliya, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The defendants were further restrained from creating any obstruction in the agricultural activities being carried out over the aforesaid land, from causing damage thereto, or from attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly with the aid of any authority or otherwise. It is submitted that the interim injunction continues to remain in force and has neither been vacated nor modified.

5. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions received from the police authorities, would submit that the property in dispute, commonly known as "Khan Farm", is situated in Village Pipaliya within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. It is stated that one Ms. Kulsum Khan, an unmarried lady and the recorded owner of the property, died on 18.12.2025 at the age of about 95 years. It is further stated that she was survived by her sister, Nasreen Sanga, and her brother, Uved Ullah Khan, who had expired in November, 2025 and whose family is presently residing in the United States of America. According to the instructions, prior to her demise, Kulsum Khan executed a Will bequeathing the property in favour of her niece, Saira Wadra, wife of Late Richard Wadra, resident of Madhubani Park, Civil Lines, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, and Sikandar Alam, the present petitioner. It is also stated that after the death of Kulsum Khan, rival claims over the property have been raised by Nasreen Sanga and other family members, resulting in civil litigation before the competent Civil Court at Kichha with regard to the validity of the Will and the rights flowing therefrom. It is further stated that proceedings under Section 164 of the B.N.S.S. have been initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kichha, on the basis of a police report submitted on 01.07.2026, and notices have been issued to both parties fixing 10.07.2026 for their appearance.

6. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once a competent Civil Court, by order dated 11.06.2026, has granted an order of temporary injunction protecting the possession of the parties over the property in dispute, initiation of parallel proceedings under Section 164 B.N.S.S. in respect of the very same property is wholly unwarranted and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and is already sub judice before the competent Civil Court, which is effectively seized of the matter, therefore, the executive authorities ought not to initiate parallel proceedings touching the same subject matter, particularly when the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court continues to operate.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kichha, and the written instructions furnished by the State authorities, this Court finds it prima facie surprising that despite the subsistence of a valid and operative order of temporary injunction passed by the competent Civil Court concerning the property in dispute, the police authorities submitted a report on 01.07.2026, on the basis whereof proceedings under Section 164 B.N.S.S. came to be initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Ordinarily, when a competent Civil Court is already seized of the dispute relating to possession and has granted interim protection, the executive authorities are expected to exercise due restraint so as to avoid passing parallel or conflicting orders over the same subject matter. Prima facie, the initiation of proceedings under Section 164 B.N.S.S., nearly twenty days after the grant of the interim injunction and during the subsistence thereof, requires an appropriate explanation from the authorities concerned.

8. List this matter on 06.07.2026.

9. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the Station House Officer/In-charge, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall remain present in person before this Court on 06.07.2026 at 10:30 A.M. to explain the circumstances under which proceedings under Section 164 B.N.S.S. were initiated despite the existence of a subsisting order of temporary injunction passed by the competent Civil Court in respect of the same property.

10. Learned State Counsel shall ensure the personal appearance of the aforesaid officers on the next date fixed.

11. It is clarified that the interim injunction order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar continues to remain operative and binding. Consequently, the police authorities shall ensure strict compliance with the said order in its true letter and spirit and shall maintain law and order without permitting either party to violate the directions issued by the competent Civil Court.