JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri B.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the contesting respondent. 2. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 19.1.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the permission granted under Section 157-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ( for short the Act ) for execution of sale deed has been recalled on the application moved by respondent No. 3. 3. The facts are that the petitioner purchased certain land from one Ram Karan and Ram Das both sons of Budhan who were members of scheduled caste by registered sale deed dated 24.10.2003. The sale deed was executed after the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) on 23.10.2003 as required by Section 157-A of the Act. An application dated 12.1.2004 was moved by respondent No. 3 for recall of the order on the ground inter alia that vendors were left less than 1.26 acres of land after execution of the sale deed; they had no daughter of marriageable age nor were suffering from any illness for which they required any money. It was also pleaded that a dispute between them and the vendors of the petitioner for cancellation of the sale deed is pending in second appeal before this Court. The aforesaid application moved by respondent No. 3 was allowed by the impugned order dated 19.1.2006 and the permission for execution of sale deed has been withdrawn. 4. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the permission was granted and the sale deed was executed in pursuance thereof respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to withdraw the permission. It has further been urged that the pendency of the dispute between the vendors of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 cannot constitute any ground for recall of the order passed under Section 157-A of the Act. 5. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. 6. It has further been urged that the pendency of the dispute between the vendors of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 cannot constitute any ground for recall of the order passed under Section 157-A of the Act. 5. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it was not open to the respondent No. 2 to have passed the impugned order withdrawing the permission granted under Section 157-A of the Act after the sale deed in pursuance of the said permission had already been executed. 7. Thus the impugned order dated 19.1.2006 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 8. The writ petition stands allowed. 9. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———