JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The petitioner Blooming Buds Co-Educational School, Village Bholeshwar, Joya Road, Sambhal has preferred this petition challenging the validity of order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel on behalf of all the respondents. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as the Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order in the manner in which it has been passed. It is next contended that impugned order over-reaches the order passed in judicial proceeding in the form of interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed the objections before S.D.M., who without considering his objections has passed the order impugned merely on the basis of the case, as set up by respondent No. 4 on surmises and conjectures. 4. A perusal of the record shows that due to certain disputes with regard to the western boundary wall of petitioner’s school, the petitioner had filed civil suit No. 1160 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sambhal, in which he had moved an application 6C praying for interim injunction which had been allowed ex parte in his favour vide order dated 23.9.2014. By the interim order defendants were restrained to demolish the western boundary wall of petitioner’s school. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were fully aware of the order of injunction, which fact is evident from the order dated 22.11.2014, itself of S.D.M. Sambhal. Therefore, the S.D.M. Sambhal should not have passed order dated 22.11.2014 to demolish the wall when he had full knowledge that there is an injunction order passed by competent Court of law not to demolish that wall. But the S.D.M. Sambhal, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and in clear defiance of the order of the Civil Court, has passed the impugned order. 5. But the S.D.M. Sambhal, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and in clear defiance of the order of the Civil Court, has passed the impugned order. 5. The impugned order reads as under: dk;kZy; miftykf/kdkjh lEHky i=kd la0 1158@,l0Vh0 &14@fnukad 22-11-14 rglhynkj lEHkyA d`i;k bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad la0 307@,l0Vh0 14@fnukad 23-08-14 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djs] ¼lqYkHk lUnHkZ gsrq Nk;kizfrfyfi iszf”kr gSA½ izkFkhZ Jh ,e0 'kQhd v'kQkdh fuoklh ekS0 dkthljk; lEHky ds izdj.k ls lEcaf/kr izdj.k ek0 jkT; lwpuk vk;ksx y[kuÅ es yfEcr gS ls lEcaf/kr i=koyh bl vk'k; ls vkidks izsf”kr fd xbZ Fkh fd vki xzke tykyiqj ekSgEenkckn ls lEcaf?kr jkLrs ls xkVk la0 34 ls vfrdze.k gVokdj dh xbZ d`r dk;Zokgh ls voxr djk;saA izkFkhZ Jh ,e0 'kQhd v'kQkdh fuoklh dkth ljk; lEHky }kjk vkt fnukad 22-11-14 dks izkFkZuk i= ,oa U;k;ky; flfoy tt tw0fM0 lEHky ds U;k;ky; es ;ksftr okn la0 1160@2014 Cywfeax oMl dks ,twds'ku Ldwy ds ekStk Hkksys’oj tks;k jksM cuke cnj gqlSu vkfn fuoklhx.k ls lEcaf/kr okn dh Nk;kizfrfyi nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-08-14 ds }kjk xzke Hkksys'oj dh xkVk la0 41 ftldk orZeku es uEcj 86 ntZ gS ij fLFkr Cywfeax oMl dks,twds'ku Ldwy tks;k jksM lEHky ds Hkou dh if'peh fn'kk okyh nhokj dks felekj u djus lMd esa 'kkfey u djus o i<+kbZ esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk O;o/kku mRiUu u djus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA tcfd okLrfod fLFkfr ;g gS fd xzke tykyiqj ekSgEenkckn dh xkVk la0 34 ij jktLo fjdkMZ esa lkoZtfud jkLrk ntZ gS ftl ij Jh Q[k:y bLyke iq= Jh el:j bLyke fuoklh nhik ljk; Áca/ku Cywfeax oMl dks ,twds'ku Ldwy tks;k jksM lEHky ds }kjk vukf/kÑr :i ls dCtk dj Hkou nhokj dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k gSA tcfd Á'uxr LFkuxukns'k xzke Hkksys'oj dh xkVk la0 41 ftldh orZeku xkVk la0 86 gS ij ÁHkkoh gksrk gSA ,slh n'kk esa foi{kh }kjk lkoZtfud jkLrs ij fd;s x;s voS/k fuekZ.k dks /oLr fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk fd;k x;k gSA vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki lkoZtfud jkLrk fLFkr xzke tykyiqj ekSgEenkckn dh xkVk la0 34 ij foi{kh }kjk fd;s x;s vfrdze.k dks viuh ns[k js[k esa jktLo fujh{kd@ys[kiky vkfn dh mifLFkfr esa FkkukLrj ls Ik;kZIr ek=k esa iqfyl cy izkIr dj mDr vfrdze.k gVokdj bl dk;kZy; dks voxr djk;sA g0 viBuh; miftykf/kdkjh lEHky izfrfyfi %& Fkkuk/;{k u[kklk dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izsf"kr dh viuh ns[kjs[k esa 'kkafr O;oLFkk gsrq Ik;kZIr iqfyl cy ds lkFk voS/k vfrdze.k gVok;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dj voxr djk;sa rFkk LFky ij 'kkafr O;oLFkk cuh jgsA g0 viBuh; miftykf/kdkjh lEHky 6. Even assuming that Gata number of the land mentioned in the order of Court was different from Gata number of the land mentioned in the revenue records, even then as there was a clear mention that the western boundary wall of the school was not to be demolished during pendency of the suit, S.D.M. had no authority to pass such order. The S.D.M., Sambhal, only on the basis of statement of respondent No. 4 and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and without even any measurement of the disputed area has ordered to demolish the boundary wall of the institution. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of S.D.M. Sambhal is liable to be quashed. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 22.11.2014 is quashed. The S.D.M. is also warned for the future not to pass any order in defiance of any order passed by a Court of law. 9. A certified copy of this order shall be produced by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today before the S.D.M., Sambhal for necessary compliance and also for his future guidance. ——————