The petitioners, Methodist Mission Girls Junior High School Civil Lines Sitapur and another, asserted that they have been in possession of a 3.562‑hectare plot situated in Village Chavani Kadim, Pargana Khairabad, Sitapur district for more than one and a half centuries. According to the pleadings, the land was acquired by the predecessor in interest of the school in 1862, subsequently transferred to the earlier predecessor and finally vested in the present petitioners, who operate an educational institution on the premises.

The respondents, comprising the State of Uttar Pradesh and four other authorities, contended that the same parcel had been recorded as Nazool land in government records. The State counsel relied on an order passed by the District Magistrate of Sitapur on 24 June 2026, stating that the administration had not interfered with the portion of the land actually used by the school and the Church, but had undertaken reclamation of other areas as specified in that order. It was further submitted that certain demolition works had been executed and possession of the demolished portion had been taken over by the Nagar Palika Parishad Sitapur in July 2024.

Proceedings Before the Court

The matter was taken up in a special Sunday sitting convened on 12 July 2026 before a Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai. The Bench was apprised of the urgency of the situation owing to an alleged imminent threat of demolition of the school’s property.

During the hearing, the Court noted the existence of a civil suit—Suit No. 34 of 2017—pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sitapur, which pertains to a portion of the same disputed property. The Bench observed that this pertinent fact had not been disclosed in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners explained that the petition had been prepared and filed under considerable urgency, which resulted in the omission of certain details from the record.

Taking into account the State’s admission that it had already taken possession of a part of the disputed land, the Bench considered it necessary to issue an interim protective direction to prevent any alteration of the status of the possessed portion.

Operative Order

The Court directed the State Government authorities not to change the nature of the disputed property already in their possession and ordered that the parties shall maintain the status quo over the said land until the next date of listing. The Bench further instructed the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel to communicate the order to the concerned State authorities immediately, without awaiting the issuance of a certified copy.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 20 July 2026 and has been placed among the top ten cases for that date.

Implications

By granting status quo, the High Court has temporarily restrained any unilateral action that could alter the existing physical or legal condition of the land in question. The order preserves the ability of the school to continue its educational activities on the portion it occupies, while the underlying title dispute remains to be adjudicated in the pending civil suit. The directive also underscores the Court’s willingness to intervene swiftly when allegations of imminent demolition are raised, even in a specially convened sitting.