By the Court.—We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought permission to sell her property, which she purchased from one Sri Shashi Kumar Kesarwani on 6-12-2005. The permission to sell her property has been refused on the ground that out of the entire khata No. 71 area 5.385 hectares, area 2.207 hectares was declared surplus in the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act and has been so recorded in the revenue records. The writ petition filed in the High Court, challenging the order passed under the Act, is pending. 3. There are 24 persons recorded as . co-owner of the khata. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the land purchased by her was free from the limits of urban ceiling, as is evident from the documents annexed with the sale-deed. The Sub-Divisional, Bara has referred to the order dated 5-12-2006, by which he has passed an order restraining the co-owners from selling the land, as there was no partition and demarcation of the plot on the spot. 5. Learned standing was required to seek instructions. 6. In the instructions of District Magistrate dated 6-2-2013, forwarded to the Chief Standing Counsel, Allahabad, it is stated that Ghata No. 71 M area 5.385 hectares was recorded in the name of tenure-holders - Kesar Siptan Khan and others. There are 24 co-tenure-holders, including Shashi Kumar and Smt. Asha Tripathi - petitioner. An area of 2.201 hectares of plot No. 71 was declared surplus in the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, and that the land has been recorded in the name of the State Government. The appeal filed by the original tenure-holder Sri Kesar Siptan Khan and others was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (II), Allahabad. The tenure-holder thereafter filed a writ petition No. 37683 of 2004, which is pending in the High Court and in which an interim order has been passed to the effect that in case the petitioners are in possession over the land, declared as surplus, they shall not be dispossessed till the next date of listing. The tenure-holder thereafter filed a writ petition No. 37683 of 2004, which is pending in the High Court and in which an interim order has been passed to the effect that in case the petitioners are in possession over the land, declared as surplus, they shall not be dispossessed till the next date of listing. The District Magistrate has submitted a report that in the circumstances until partition of the Khata is made under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it is not appropriate to grant permission for any sale. 7. There is no dispute that out of khata No. 71 area 5.385 hectares, 2.201 hectares was declared as surplus, on which the State Government is recorded. We are of the opinion that until the pending writ petition is decided, and the land, which has been declared surplus attains finality and is identified, and further until there is partition of land between the co-owners who have purchased the land from time to time and have been recorded on the Khata, any permission given by the District Magistrate will not only cause confusion but also lead to multiplicity of litigation. 8. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It will be open to the petitioner to implead as respondent in the pending writ petition, and seek its early disposal, and thereafter seek partition under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and LR. Act and start taking possession after demarcation of the partitioned portion by meets and bounds. It is made clear that after the aforesaid proceedings are concluded, no permission will be required to sell the land by the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________