JUDGMENT Arun Tandon and Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,JJ. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.S. Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioner, before this Court on the basis of an agreement to sell executed in his favour along with other members of the same family, has approached this Court for quashing of the free-hold deed made in favour of respondent no.4 Sudha Srivastava by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on behalf of the Governor of the Uttar Pradesh dated 18th May, 2000 in respect of Bungalow No. 115C, Newada Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad, more appropriately described in the free hold deed. 3. We are of the considered opinion that if the executor to the agreement to sell has breached the agreement so arrived at between the parties and has created third party rights by exercising option in favour of one of the family members of the petitioner,then the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a suit for enforcement of his agreement to sell as well as for cancellation of the deed, whereby third party rights have been created and as consequence thereto, he also has a right to challenge the free hold deed which has been executed in favour of third person. 4. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the issues of facts, as have been raised by means of the present writ petition. The arbitration clause provided for under the free hold deed will have no application in the facts of the case, inasmuch as such arbitration clause is binding between the parties to the free hold deed or their successors in interest. We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit as indicated above.