JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Prahalad Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. Shri R.M. Pandey appears for respondent No. 2. Shri M.C. Tripathi appears for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of an open piece of land on the Canal Patri Nai Dal Mandi, Kanpur Nagar, which appears to have been carved out after a canal was closed by the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner along with 72 persons filed a Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995 for allotment. The writ petition was dismissed on 23.7.1996 in respect of all those persons, who had not deposited Rs. 20,000 and had raised constructions. They were directed to shift their shops to some other place. 3. The petitioner had not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and was not given any relief by the Court. Instead of removing the shop to some other place, he filed another Writ Petition No. 14467 of 1998, in which a direction was issued on 23.4.1998, that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 20,000/- within three weeks, he will not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute. It is stated that the petitioner deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 6.5.1998 in terms of the order of the Court. The writ petition, however, was dismissed on merits on 10.1.2001 with the following orders : “The real prayer of the petitioner is to command the respondents not to demolish the shop to evict him except in accordance with law but without disclosing its identity. We asked Mr. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner to locate his finger on any pleading with reference to either the plot number, shop No. or even with a reference to its boundary in regard to the identity of the shop in question which he failed. Accordingly we dismiss the writ petition being bad for vagueness.” 4. The petitioner thereafter filed a third Writ Petition No. 5875 of 2001 which was also dismissed in limine on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and has become defaulter in the year 1996. The order is quoted as below : “This is the third attempt by the writ petitioner to continue in possession. Under the scheme he did not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and became defaulter which has been recorded in the order dated 23.7.1996 of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed. The order is quoted as below : “This is the third attempt by the writ petitioner to continue in possession. Under the scheme he did not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and became defaulter which has been recorded in the order dated 23.7.1996 of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter writ petition was filed which was also dismissed. We are of the view that there is no scope for granting any relief to the writ petitioner. On the contrary the Kanpur Development Authority should have been approached. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.” 5. The petitioner thereafter filed a Civil Suit No. 1503 of 2003, in which the trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. The interim injunction operated for four years and that finally on 5.9.2008, when the Court was informed that the Writ Petition No. 14467 of 1998 was dismissed on merits, the injunction order was vacated. The petitioner filed a Misc. Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2008, in which inspite of the objections and clear findings recorded by the trial Court that successive writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed, the appellate Court has passed an order on 29.9.2008, directing the parties to maintain status quo. The interim order is still operative. 6. We are unable to appreciate as to how the appellate Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo, when three writ petitions filed by the petitioner for allotment of same plot were dismissed by this Court. 7. Now by this fourth writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the allotment dated 17.5.2004 made by the Kanpur Development Authority to which the plot have been allotted the demarcated plot to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 8. The petitioner had a right to be considered for allotment subject to his depositing Rs. 20,000/- by the date fixed by the Kanpur Development Authority. The first writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he did not deposit Rs. 20,000/- and that he was directed to shift at some other place. Taking advantage of the interim order, which was apparently passed ex-parte without noticing that the earlier writ petition was dismissed, this Court allowed the petitioner on 23.4.1998 to deposit Rs. 20,000/-. 20,000/- and that he was directed to shift at some other place. Taking advantage of the interim order, which was apparently passed ex-parte without noticing that the earlier writ petition was dismissed, this Court allowed the petitioner on 23.4.1998 to deposit Rs. 20,000/-. The writ petition was finally dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could not identify the land for which he was the applicant. Ostensibly the second writ petition was also dismissed on the ground that his first writ petition was dismissed. 9. We strongly deprecate the attempts made by the petitioner to seek interim orders for one reason or other and to protect his possession. When the Court has thrice dismissed the writ petitions, the trial Court should not have granted injunction. The appellate Court appears to have acted grossly illegal in directing status quo to be maintained and depriving respondent Nos. 4 and 5 of possession of the plot, which have now been carved out and for which they have deposited substantial amount. 10. This fourth writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appellate order directing status quo to be maintained is still operative. 12. We do not see any good reason as to why the order of status quo could be granted and may be allowed to continue. The order passed by the appellate Court on 29.9.2008 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 104/2008, Ram Narain Sahu v. K.D.A., if it is still operative, is also discharged. ————