JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated April 7, 1973 passed by Sri K.S.P. Srivastava, S.D.O., Dumariyaganj, District Basti in Case No. 978 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 2. It appears that a registered sale deed was executed by Smt. Sarvaswati Devi, w/o, Sankatha Prasad on May 22, 1974 in favour of Hazrullah, Sitabullah, Mohd Siddiq and Sarikat Ali. The land under sale is plot No. 379 measuring 3 bighas, 6 biswas and 8 dhurs situate in village Parsa, Pargana Basti West, Tahsil Domariyaganj. On the basis of the sale deed Hazrullah applied for mutation. Objections were filed by Amin and others. The case of the objectors was that they had constructed houses; Gharis and Charnis over the land in dispute and that it was also used as Khalihan by the villagers. 3. Naib Tahsildar carried out a spot inspection on December 17, 1972. Later on after hearing both the parties he submitted a report on January 6, 1973 for orders of the S.D.O. His recommendation was that over the Western border of the land in dispute certain areas were covered by the house, Gharis and Charnis of the objectors. After hearing both the parties, the learned S.D.O. passed an order that the names of the applicant-vendees shall be recorded on the land in dispute in place of Smt. Saraswati Devi barring the area for which the objectors had constructed their house etc. This order is dated April 7, 1973. It is against the above order that the present revision has been directed. 4. Learned Commissioner has referred the revision to the Board with the recommendation that it should be accepted and the order under revision should be quashed because the applicant-vendees against the above reference. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant-vendees that the recommendation of the learned. Commissioner is beside the point because he has not given due weight to the fact that a sale deed was executed by the landholder in their favour. There is plenty of force of in this argument. The land in dispute is Bhumidhari of Smt. Saraswati Devi who had executed the sale deed. She had deposited twenty times of rent. She was entitled to sell. There is Registered sale deed. There is plenty of force of in this argument. The land in dispute is Bhumidhari of Smt. Saraswati Devi who had executed the sale deed. She had deposited twenty times of rent. She was entitled to sell. There is Registered sale deed. There is also a recital in the sale deed that she had put the vendees in possession. In such cases it had been held in 1977 R.D. 211 which is a Full Bench ruling of the Board of Revenue that the vendees will be taken to have been in constructive possession. I am, therefore, of the view that the names of the applicant-vendees have got to be recorded in place of Smt. Saraswati Devi. 6. It has been urged on behalf of the objectors Amin and others that they are in possession of the portion of the land in dispute because they have constructed their house, Gharis and Charnis and that they have also a well therein. It has been urged that the construction does not mean that these objectors who have been in possession for a long time should be ousted and their house should be ousted and their house should be demolished. There is some force in this arguments. It is evident from the spot inspection carried out by the Naib-Tahsildar that there are houses etc. on the western border of the land in dispute. It is for this reason that the learned S.D.O. had, while permitting the mutation over the land in dispute, refused it in respect of the area so occupied by the objectors. From the facts of the case, it appears that this was the correct order. There is however, one mistake in his order that the area so occupied by the objectors has not been demarcated. This has got to be done in order to stop future disputes. 7. In view of the above, the reference by the learned Commissioner is rejected and the order passed by the learned S.D.O. is upheld. The result is that the names of the applicant-vendees shall be recorded over the land in dispute excepting the area occupied by the house, Charnis and Gharis of the objectors. The areas occupied will be demarcated by an official of the Tahsil whose expenses will be met by both the parties.