JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the proceedings under section 34 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act. It is claimed that the petitioner was in possession and Bhumidhar over plot No.112 area 0.802 acre. It is alleged that respondent no. 4 moved an application under section 34 for mutation in 2005 upon a sale deed executed in respect of an area 10 Biswas out of 0.802 acre by the petitioner on 18.1.1988. The matter was contested by the petitioner and twice it was remanded directing the authority concerned to determine the possession over the land in question. In the meantime, respondent no.4 executed a sale deed in April 2006 in favour of Dharamwati Devi and Dharamwati Devi thereafter executed another sale deed on May 2006 in favour of Kusum Devi. By the impugned order the court below has held that a sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.4 Dharamwati Devi and subsequent sale deed in favour of Dharamwati Devi and Smt.Kusum Devi have not yet been cancelled by any court and in a summary proceedings, the names of Narendrapal and Smt.Dharamwati Devi and Smt.Kusum Devi on the basis of registered sale deed are to be mutated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others 2004 (22) LCD 494 to state that against the proceedings under section 34, the writ petition is maintainable. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned as admittedly the sale deeds executed in favour of Narendrapal in the year 1998 has not been cancelled by any competent court and thereafter the subsequent sale deeds dated April 2006 and May, 2006 also have not been been cancelled. As such in the summary proceedings under section 34 which in any case does not determine the title of the person, I am not inclined to interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon void document no entry can be made. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention also as a void document has to be declared void by a competent court. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon void document no entry can be made. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention also as a void document has to be declared void by a competent court. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The parties can get their right and title settled before a court of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.