JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard Sri Girish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the District Judge, Etah in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2017 (State of U.P. through Collector, Etah vs. Harish Chandra and others). A further prayer has been made to direct the parties to maintain status quo over the land in dispute bearing Arazi No. 235, Area 0.28 Decimal (Old No. 989/1 Area 0.28 hectare) situated in Village Achalpur, Pargana Marhara, Tehsil and District Etah and also further direct not to change the nature of the aforesaid land till the disposal of the civil suit. 3. By the impugned order dated 7.4.2018, the interim injunction of status quo granted by the trial Court was vacated by the appellate Court on the ground that the land in question, being Old Gata No. 989/1 Area 0.28 hectare (new number after consolidation Arazi No. 235 Area 0.28 decimal), has been recorded as 'navin parti' and that the possession of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was not recorded anywhere in the revenue record and therefore, no injunction can be granted against the true owner. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court, after having considered the documents on record, has granted order of status quo on the land in question and same was liable to continue otherwise suit itself will become infructuous. It was further submitted that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in his favour and in case no interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff-petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It was next submitted that Nana and Nani (maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother) were the owner of the property in question and a Will was executed by their Nani in the year 1993 and now they are in possession over the plot in question, whereon two huts, two borings, one neem tree, one bell tree, one pilkhuna tree and one shivling are existing. It was next contended that without taking recourse of proceedings under Section 120-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, plaintiff-petitioner cannot be dispossessed and it is not in dispute that no such proceedings have been undertaken. 5. It was next contended that without taking recourse of proceedings under Section 120-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, plaintiff-petitioner cannot be dispossessed and it is not in dispute that no such proceedings have been undertaken. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. On perusal of record, I find that undisputed fact is that during consolidation proceedings regarding gata no. 989/1 area 0.28 hectare, no objection was raised by Nana or Nani. The explanation submitted for this is that since they were illiterate persons, therefore, they could not raise any objection. On the contrary, the State Government that has come forward to file misc. appeal challenging the interim injunction granted by the trial Court has placed on record Akar Patra No. 41 wherein the aforesaid old gata number 989/1 with new number 238 has been shown as navin parti and still continues to be the same. Even in Khasra the same is shown as navin parti and there is no entry of possession of the plaintiff-petitioner in the record. 7. Under such circumstances, it is not in dispute that true owner of the property is the State Government. 8. It is settled law that there can be no injunction against true owner and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and documentary evidence on record, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein. 9. Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.