JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Y.S.Saxena alongwith Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as also learned Standing Counsel. Although cause list has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 5. 2. Counter-affidavit of respondents No. 4 and 5 is available on record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby his appeal under Section 15 (2) of the RBO Act relating to sanction of building map has been rejected. 4. Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied for sanction of building map over the plot No. 2166 Gha, Ward No. 6, Indira Nagar Development Area Maharajganj/Finance village Chiuraha Maupakar, which was initially approved by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 27.3.2003. However, on the objection filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4, the sanction was made conditional by the order dated 18.12.2003 to provide that if there is any title dispute over the land in question, the sanction would stand automatically denied. Learned counsel states that on the objection of the respondents No. 3 and 4 the orders dated 14.3.2005 and 23.4.2005 were passed, whereby the construction being made by the petitioner over the land in question was stayed by the Authority on the ground that there is a title dispute pending before the Civil Court and hence in view of the conditional sanction, the construction cannot be raised. Sri Saxena has submitted that the aforesaid recitation in the impugned order is patently incorrect inasmuch as the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 3 being Suit No. 144/2005 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Maharajganj relates to grant of injunction against the respondent No. 3 from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. Sri Saxena has referred to paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, Nagar Palika Parishad, Maharajganj to state that the aforesaid suit relates to injunction and it does not relate to any dispute of title. He therefore, states that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is clearly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. He therefore, states that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is clearly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 of his counter-affidavit to indicate that insofar as the plot in question is concerned, one part has been recorded as Bunjer, which is clear from Akarpatra 41 and another part has been entered in Column 6(9) as Khaliyan and it is recorded in the name of Sri Devendra Shukla (respondent No. 4). He states that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, in any case the petitioner not being the recorded owner of the land in question, cannot raise construction thereupon. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the issue considered in the impugned order is primarily on the basis of conditional sanction granted to the petitioner for the purpose of construction of building. The condition was that if there is a title dispute over the land in question, the sanction of map will automatically be cancelled. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the sanction of map has been cancelled on the ground that there is a title dispute of the land in question pending before the Civil Court and hence the Prescribed Authority has interfered on the basis of conditional sanction of map and directed to maintain status-quo. 7. The respondent No. 5 on the basis of averments made in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit has come up with the case that the Suit No. 144/2005 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Maharajganj does not relate to a dispute of title of the land in question but it is a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 3 for grant of injunction. 8. The objection raised by the respondent No. 4 is that he claims that a portion of the land in question is recorded as Bunjer and another portion is recorded as Khaliyan in his name and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise construction of building on the land in question, hence he filed an objection before the respondent No. 2 against the application for sanction of building plan made by the petitioner. Insofar as the aforesaid submission is concerned, admittedly the respondent No. 4 has not filed any suit either for injunction or for title of land against the petitioner. His claim is made on the basis of certain record which are referred to in the impugned order. In case it is the case of the respondent No. 4 that a portion of land belongs to him he ought to have obtained appropriate order from the competent authority. 9. Sanction of the map does not confer or extinguish title over the land in question. Sanction of map is only for the purpose of sanction of construction of building therefore, the respondent No. 4 if he had claimed title over the land in question he was at liberty to approach the appropriate Court but having not done so, the claim made by the respondent No. 4 cannot be adjudicated by this Court in this writ petition. Insofar as the objection raised by the respondent No. 4 before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 is concerned, the same has been considered. The ground on which the sanction of map has been cancelled is that there is dispute for title of the land in question. It is clear that the aforesaid finding is incorrect and there is nothing on record either in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4 or respondent No. 5 to indicate that any title proceeding is pending before the Civil Court. Consequently the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and 26.5.2006 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively are set aside. The condition imposed for sanction of the building map is maintained. 11. The writ petition stands allowed as above. 12. No order is passed as to costs. ————