JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents and in particular respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Khasra 144/152 and 144/153 in village Kanjhawla, Bawana Road, New Delhi. It is the petitioner’s contention that he has leased out the aforesaid property to IBP Company Limited for establishing its retail outlet. I am not here concerned with the establishment of the retail outlet as such, as the same will have to be in accordance with the provisions of law which IBP Company Limited would have to comply with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retail outlet is already operational. Various documents have been shown to establish that the petitioner is in fact, the owner of the land in question. These facts are not denied by the respondents and in particular it is admitted that under consolidation proceedings the aforesaid Khasras were recorded as being under the ownership of the petitioner. The certificate issued by the Revenue Assistant /SDM dated 8.11.2001 is to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid Khasra Nos. This is also not disputed. It is apparent that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question and the petitioner’s only grievance is that the respondents should not interfere in the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that a suit being S. No. 1876/2000 had been filed which is pending in this Court in which some status quo order had been passed. It is in respect of that order that the respondents had gone to the property in question. However, it is apparent that in that suit the petitioner is not a party. Be that as it may, at best the order passed in this suit is an order for maintaining status quo and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since the petitioner is already in possession, his possession cannot, in any event, be interfered with by the respondents.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only direction that needs to be given is that the respondents and particularly respondents 1 and 2 shall not interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Khasra Nos. 144/152 and 144/153 of Village Kanjhawla, Bawana Road, Delhi.
3. With these directions the writ petition stands disposed of.