JUDGMENT A. N Varma, J. 1. The petition has had a chequered history all of which need not be elaborated here in view of the facts which we are presently stating. 2. The petition was initially filed for quashing an order dated 3-10- 1989 passed by the District Magistrate/Vice Chairman, Banda Development Authority, Banda whereby he had stayed the operation of a sanction granted by him in favour of the petitioners for construction of a building upon an application filed by the contesting respondents. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of a notice dated. 14-10-1989 issued by the District Magistrate/Vice Chairman calling upon the petitioners to appear on a date fixed before him for disposing of the application filed by the contesting respondents with regard to the grant of the sanction to the petitioners. Besides this, certain proceedings which has been initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents before the State Government for the transfer of the proceedings pending on file of Sri Rakesh Garg the then District Magistrate to some other District Magistrate are also sought to be quashed. So far as the transfer proceedings are concerned, the same have become infructuous as admittedly Sri Rakesh Garg has since been transferred. 3. Coming back to the proceedings which were initiated by the contesting respondents by way of an objection against the sanction granted by the District Magistrate to the petitioners, the position is that the sole ground on which the sanction was challenged was based on the allegation that the disputed property belongs to a temple of which the respondents were priests and worshippers and that the petitioners have no right title or interest in the disputed land. 4. It is apparent that the objection of the respondents involves as adjudication of a dispute pertaining to the title to the land in question. IT has consistently been ruled by this court right from the earliest time that disputes pertaining to the title to the property with respect to which sanction is sought cannot and ought not appropriately to be determined in such proceedings. Indeed there is a complete unanimity of opinion on this point, the view expressed being that such an issue is beyond the purview of the proceedings for sanction of the plan, 1945 Alld 393, 1982 Alld. 290, 1980 AWC 637 and finally 1991 ACJ 649 .. Indeed there is a complete unanimity of opinion on this point, the view expressed being that such an issue is beyond the purview of the proceedings for sanction of the plan, 1945 Alld 393, 1982 Alld. 290, 1980 AWC 637 and finally 1991 ACJ 649 .. We are in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed by this Court in the above decisions. It is, however, unnecessary to dilate on this point further beyond stating that the contesting respondents have already instituted a suit raising the same controversy and asserting the same claim, namely, that the petitioners not being the owners of the property are liable to be evicted from the disputed land. A relief for demolition of the construction made by the petitioners pursuant to the sanction granted to them has also been claimed in the suit Annexure-R A-2 purports to be true copy of the plaint. From the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that precisely same issue of title which was urged by the contesting respondents in their objections before the District Magistrate is sought to be canvassed in that civil suit. 5. We are. therefore clearly of the view that it will not be proper for the District Magistrate to enter into and determine the above issue which is the very matter which has to be considered and decided in the regular civil suit instituted the petitioner. 6. In this connection it may be noted that the sanction which was granted to the petitioners to raise the constructions expressly states and provides that it is without prejudice to the ownership rights over the land in question. That being so, the interest of the contesting respondents stands fully protected by the terms of the sanction itself. Apart from the protection granted to the respondents under the sanction, the interest of the contesting respondents stands further safeguarded by the statement made by Sri W. H. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar before us today namely, that in case the suit of the contesting respondents succeeds and it is held that the petitioners have no right over the land on which the disputed construction stands, the petitioners shall remove the construction at their own costs. This undertaking shall form part of our order. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. This undertaking shall form part of our order. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 3-10-89 passed toy the District Magistrate/Vice-Chairman as well as the notice dated 14-10-89 issued by him are quashed subject to the condition that the sanction granted to the petitioners shall abide the result of the suit instituted by the contesting respondents and be subject to the above undertaking given to this court by the petitioners through their counsel Sri W. Hr Khan. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.