Prakash Chandra vs Board Of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Chairman And

1. Head Shri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 4 and 5, is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on

9.3.2021 the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the lands situated at Gata No. 618, measuring 0.089 hectares, Gata No. 619 measuring 0.873 hectares, Gata No. 395 measuring 0.228 hectares, Gata No. 620, measuring 0.0477 hectares and Gata No. 705, measuring

0.114 hectares, situated at village Topra, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, from respondent no.4. The said agreement to sell was also registered on 9.3.2021.

3. According to the agreement to sell the respondent no.4 was to sell the said land within the period of three years from the date of agreement to sell with the condition that the petitioner would be ready to purchase the said land and tender the entire sale consideration as agreed at the time of sale.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was ready and willing to enter into sale agreement but respondent no.4 in the meanwhile sold the sand land in favour of respondent no. 5 by means of a 2 WRIB No. 941 of 2025 sale deed dated 22.12.2023. It is on the basis of said sale deed respondent no.5 has moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code before the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao for recording the name in his land. The petitioner also filed his objections to the application preferred by respondent no.5, which was rejected by means of the impugned order dated 28.9.2024, the Tehsildar directed the aforesaid land to be recorded in the name of respondent no.4.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by means of order dated 28.9.2024, had preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, which has also been rejected by means of an order dated

10.7.2025 and lastly even the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue, which has been rejected by means of order dated 7.8.2025 and in the present writ petition all the orders have been assailed.

6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged the sale deed entered between the respondents no. 4 and 5 by filing two civil suits before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Purwa, District Unnao being Civil Suit No. 66/2024 for cancellation of sale deed (Prakash Chandra Vs. Gokaran) and another Civil Suit No. 100/2024 for specific performance of sale agreement (Prakash Chandra Vs. Gokaran) and both the suits are pending.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once an agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.4 that respondent no.4 was obliged to sell the land in favour of the petitioner and accordingly he submits that fraud has been committed by the sale deed executed between the respondents no. 4 and 5. He further submits that it is on the basis of the said fraudulent sale deed the respondent no.5 has moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, who has illegally rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and accordingly has assailed the orders passed by the Tehsildar, S.D.M. and the Board of Revenue.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported all the orders and submitted that only document in favour of the petitioner is an agreement to sell by which no right, property or title passes in favour of 3 WRIB No. 941 of 2025 any person. He further submits that the sale deed was executed by respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.5 and accordingly the right, title of the disputed property would vest in respondent no.5 and accordingly has supported the impugned orders but the disputed property has been directed to be mutated in the name of respondent no.5.

9. Considering the rival submissions, I find that only document in favour of the petitioner is an agreement to sell at the time of entering into the said agreement the petitioner had given advance Rupees of 2 lakhs and was agreed between the parties that the sale deed was entered into within next three months. It is despite the receipt of the consideration by respondent no.4 that he illegally and arbitrarily entered into the agreement to sell with respondent no.5.

10. Be that as it may once the sale has been entered into then the purchaser can be divested of the property only when the appropriate proceedings are initiated for cancellation the sale deed by the court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, I find that the petitioner has already filed two suits before the (Junior Division) Purwa, District Unnao which are pending consideration. One suit is for cancellation of the sale deed while the second suit is for specific performance seeking an injunction to respondent no.4 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

11. This Court is also conscious of the legal view consistently held that there entering into agreement to sell does not vest right and title in the property. Accordingly till such time, as the sale deed is set aside and a fresh sale deed is entered into in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would not have any right, title and interest in the disputed property. In absence of any right or title, I find that the objections filed by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, were liable to be rejected and accordingly has been rightly rejected by the Tehsildar. Confronted with the sale deed or an agreement to sell on the other the Tehsildar has rightly decided the dispute directed the property to be registered in favour of respondent no.5, in whose favour a registered sale deed exists. 4 WRIB No. 941 of 2025

12. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the appellate order as well as the revisional order upholding the rights of respondent no.5 to be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed. In case the petitioner succeeds in the suit proceedings then certainly he will ever better right and claim to the disputed property, where the petitioner will have liberty to file fresh application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code for having the disputed property recorded in his name but till such time as the suit proceedings are decided in his favour, I do not find that he has any right, title or interest in the disputed property on the basis of which, the land can be mutated in his favour.

13. Apart from the above, I find that that even the order of mutation is only for the purpose of correction of revenue and does not confer any right, title or interest in the disputed property which shall certainly subject to appropriate orders of the Court of civil jurisdiction.

14. In the light of above, I do not find infirmity in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Head Shri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 4 and 5, is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on

9.3.2021 the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the lands situated at Gata No. 618, measuring 0.089 hectares, Gata No. 619 measuring 0.873 hectares, Gata No. 395 measuring 0.228 hectares, Gata No. 620, measuring 0.0477 hectares and Gata No. 705, measuring

0.114 hectares, situated at village Topra, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, from respondent no.4. The said agreement to sell was also registered on 9.3.2021.

3. According to the agreement to sell the respondent no.4 was to sell the said land within the period of three years from the date of agreement to sell with the condition that the petitioner would be ready to purchase the said land and tender the entire sale consideration as agreed at the time of sale.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was ready and willing to enter into sale agreement but respondent no.4 in the meanwhile sold the sand land in favour of respondent no. 5 by means of a 2 WRIB No. 941 of 2025 sale deed dated 22.12.2023. It is on the basis of said sale deed respondent no.5 has moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code before the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao for recording the name in his land. The petitioner also filed his objections to the application preferred by respondent no.5, which was rejected by means of the impugned order dated 28.9.2024, the Tehsildar directed the aforesaid land to be recorded in the name of respondent no.4.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by means of order dated 28.9.2024, had preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, which has also been rejected by means of an order dated

10.7.2025 and lastly even the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue, which has been rejected by means of order dated 7.8.2025 and in the present writ petition all the orders have been assailed.

6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged the sale deed entered between the respondents no. 4 and 5 by filing two civil suits before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Purwa, District Unnao being Civil Suit No. 66/2024 for cancellation of sale deed (Prakash Chandra Vs. Gokaran) and another Civil Suit No. 100/2024 for specific performance of sale agreement (Prakash Chandra Vs. Gokaran) and both the suits are pending.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once an agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.4 that respondent no.4 was obliged to sell the land in favour of the petitioner and accordingly he submits that fraud has been committed by the sale deed executed between the respondents no. 4 and 5. He further submits that it is on the basis of the said fraudulent sale deed the respondent no.5 has moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, who has illegally rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and accordingly has assailed the orders passed by the Tehsildar, S.D.M. and the Board of Revenue.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported all the orders and submitted that only document in favour of the petitioner is an agreement to sell by which no right, property or title passes in favour of 3 WRIB No. 941 of 2025 any person. He further submits that the sale deed was executed by respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.5 and accordingly the right, title of the disputed property would vest in respondent no.5 and accordingly has supported the impugned orders but the disputed property has been directed to be mutated in the name of respondent no.5.

9. Considering the rival submissions, I find that only document in favour of the petitioner is an agreement to sell at the time of entering into the said agreement the petitioner had given advance Rupees of 2 lakhs and was agreed between the parties that the sale deed was entered into within next three months. It is despite the receipt of the consideration by respondent no.4 that he illegally and arbitrarily entered into the agreement to sell with respondent no.5.

10. Be that as it may once the sale has been entered into then the purchaser can be divested of the property only when the appropriate proceedings are initiated for cancellation the sale deed by the court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, I find that the petitioner has already filed two suits before the (Junior Division) Purwa, District Unnao which are pending consideration. One suit is for cancellation of the sale deed while the second suit is for specific performance seeking an injunction to respondent no.4 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

11. This Court is also conscious of the legal view consistently held that there entering into agreement to sell does not vest right and title in the property. Accordingly till such time, as the sale deed is set aside and a fresh sale deed is entered into in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would not have any right, title and interest in the disputed property. In absence of any right or title, I find that the objections filed by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, were liable to be rejected and accordingly has been rightly rejected by the Tehsildar. Confronted with the sale deed or an agreement to sell on the other the Tehsildar has rightly decided the dispute directed the property to be registered in favour of respondent no.5, in whose favour a registered sale deed exists. 4 WRIB No. 941 of 2025

12. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the appellate order as well as the revisional order upholding the rights of respondent no.5 to be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed. In case the petitioner succeeds in the suit proceedings then certainly he will ever better right and claim to the disputed property, where the petitioner will have liberty to file fresh application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code for having the disputed property recorded in his name but till such time as the suit proceedings are decided in his favour, I do not find that he has any right, title or interest in the disputed property on the basis of which, the land can be mutated in his favour.

13. Apart from the above, I find that that even the order of mutation is only for the purpose of correction of revenue and does not confer any right, title or interest in the disputed property which shall certainly subject to appropriate orders of the Court of civil jurisdiction.

14. In the light of above, I do not find infirmity in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench