JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Adhin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 9, Mr. Yashpal Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sunil, learned counsel for respondent No. 10, learned standing counsel for the state respondent and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5-gaon sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 10/Shiv Kumar was recorded bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot No. 66-B, area 0.2890 hectare, situated at village Saraineu, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Allahabad. In urban ceiling proceeding 7329 square meter area belonging to father of respondent No. 10 was declared surplus excluding 1500 square meter area and house belonging to father of respondent No. 10 vide order dated 06.08.1981 but the possession of the land was not taken from the father of respondent No. 10 and the plot was remained in possession of father of respondent No. 10 and after death of father, the respondent No. 10 remained in possession. The Urban Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Government in the year 1999, accordingly, vide order dated 14.09.2016, passed by Authority/Collector, the aforementioned plot was released in favour of Father of respondent No. 10. The order dated 14.09.2016 has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 6. An agreement to Sale dated 18.10.1995 was alleged to be executed in favour of respondent No. 9 by respondent No. 10 in respect to aforementioned plot, area 367.6 sq. mtr. An Original Suit No. 245/2011 for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No. 9 along with an application for temporary injunction (paper No. 6-C). The learned Civil Judge, Allahabad on 22.02.2013, rejected the application (paper No. 6C) for temporary injunction, filed by respondent No. 9 but Suit No. 254/2011 is still pending before the civil court. Petitioner purchased an area 145.32 sq. mtr. of aforementioned plot No. 67-B, area 0.2890 hectare, from respondent No. 10 through registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010. According to the petitioner, possession of the purchased area of plot No. 66-B was delivered to the petitioner and petitioner has raised construction over the same being House No. 81-A/12, Nimsarai, Allahabad. Petitioner is recorded in the revenue records of the Nagar Nigam over the aforementioned plot and is paying necessary taxes to the Nagar Nigam. According to the petitioner, possession of the purchased area of plot No. 66-B was delivered to the petitioner and petitioner has raised construction over the same being House No. 81-A/12, Nimsarai, Allahabad. Petitioner is recorded in the revenue records of the Nagar Nigam over the aforementioned plot and is paying necessary taxes to the Nagar Nigam. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the respondent No. 6 for mutation, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010, the Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 05.03.2011 allowed the mutation application filed by the petitioner and ordered to record the name of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010, expunging the name of vendor Shiv Kumar who is respondent No. 10 in the instant writ petition. Against the order dated 05.03.2011, respondent No. 9 filed an application for recalling the order dated 05.03.2011, on the basis of the alleged agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995, executed in his favour, the recall application filed by respondent No. 9 was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 12.06.2014. Against the order dated 12.06.2014, respondent No. 9 filed an appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, before respondent No. 4 which was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2014, setting aside the orders dated 05.03.2011 and 12.06.2014. Petitioner filed a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 26.12.2014 before the respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2018, hence this writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 14.03.2018, entertained the writ petition and passed the following interim order dated 14.03.2018, which reads as under: “Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsels for the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a purchaser of a part of arazi No. 66 from one Hansu, against whom the land in dispute was declared surplus under order dated 06.08.1981 but subsequently on 14.09.2016 same came to be released in favour of Hansu who had executed a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010 in favour of the petitioner whereas the private respondents claimed mutation on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.10.1995, which does not confer any title. Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Shri Diwakar Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 7 and Shri Pramod Kumar Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 8. Issue notice to respondents Nos. 9 and 10. They pray for and are granted a month's time to file counter affidavits. Rejoinder if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the week commencing 02.07.2018. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the plot in dispute.” 4. In pursuance of the order dated 14.03.2018, respondent No. 9 has put in appearance and has filed his counter affidavit through his counsel along with an application for vacation of the interim order. Petitioner has also filed his rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 9. Respondent No. 10 has also put in appearance through his counsel and has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the case of the petitioner, to the effect that the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner but no agreement to sale was executed by his father in favour of respondent No. 9. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is claiming right on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour by the vendor/respondent No. 10 and the registered sale deed has not been cancelled by any court of law, as such, the petitioner is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records, on the basis of the registered sale deed, executed in his favour. He further submitted that so far as the contesting respondent No. 9 is concerned, he was claiming his right at that time on the basis of an agreement to sale which creates no right and title unless the sale deed is executed in favour of respondent No. 9. He further submitted that so far as the urban ceiling proceeding is concerned, a final order has been passed on 14.09.2016 by which the plot in dispute has been released in favour of the owner/father of respondent No. 10 as the Urban Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Government and possession continued in favour of the owner. He further submitted that so far as the urban ceiling proceeding is concerned, a final order has been passed on 14.09.2016 by which the plot in dispute has been released in favour of the owner/father of respondent No. 10 as the Urban Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Government and possession continued in favour of the owner. It is also submitted that urban ceiling proceeding was in respect to 7329 square meter area excluding 1500 square meter area as such the sale deed executed for 142.32 sq aure area in favour of petitioner by respondent No. 10 will not be illegal or void. It is also submitted that the civil suit for injunction filed by the petitioner is pending in the civil court in which the application for temporary injunction has been rejected recording detailed finding against respondent No. 9. He further submitted that the Tehsildar has rightly passed an order for mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner but the same has been illegally set aside by the appellate court. It is further submitted vendor of the petitioner's sale deed who is respondent No. 10 in the writ petition, has put in appearance, has filed an affidavit before this Court which is on record, in which it is mentioned that respondent No. 10 has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that the impugned appellate order and the revisional order are illegal as such liable to be set aside and the order of the Tehsildar recording the name of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed be affirmed. He further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hori Lal @ Lal Mistri vs. Tribhuwan and Others, 2013 (120) RD 415 . 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 9 submitted that the writ petition arises out of the summary proceeding, as such, same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court, reported in Smt. Kamlawati vs. Board of Revenue and Others, 2022 (0) (Supreme) 281. 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 9 submitted that the writ petition arises out of the summary proceeding, as such, same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court, reported in Smt. Kamlawati vs. Board of Revenue and Others, 2022 (0) (Supreme) 281. He further submitted that the mutation order passed by respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioner, was rightly set aside in appeal, as the vendor/respondent No. 10 has no right to execute the sale deed because the plot was declared surplus under the urban ceiling proceeding. It is also submitted that subsequent release of the plot in favour of the owner, will not make any difference as on the date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the land belongs to the State. He further submitted that respondent No. 9 has rightly filed an appeal against the order of Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar and the order of the Tehsildar has been rightly set aside against which no interference is required. He further submitted that respondent No. 10/Shiv Kumar has filed a Civil Suit No. 815/2000, against respondent No. 9, in which no interim injunction was granted by the civil court and ultimately the aforementioned Civil Suit No. 815/2000 has been withdrawn by respondent No. 10/Shiv Kumar. He also submitted that respondent No. 9 has also filed Suit No. 60/2018 for specific performance on the basis of the registered agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995 as well as for injunction in which the order for maintaining the status quo has been granted by the civil court. He also submitted that on 04.11.2019, respondent No. 10/Shiv Kumar has executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 9 on the basis of registered agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995, as such, petitioner is not entitled to be recorded in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour in the year 2010. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is claiming right on the basis of registered sale deed executed in his favour on 02.08.2010 by respondent No. 10/Shiv Kumar and petitioner was claiming right on the basis of registered agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995 executed by father of respondent No. 10. There is also no dispute that the plot in dispute was under urban ceiling operation but due to repeal of the Urban Ceiling Act, the order was passed by the competent authority for releasing the plot in favour of the owner as the possession was not taken by the State Government from the owner of the plot. There is also no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 6/Naib Tehsildar has passed an order for mutation in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010 but in appeal filed by respondent No. 9, the order has been set aside and the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioner, has been set aside, although respondent No. 9 was also not held to be recorded on the basis of agreement to sale. 9. Since the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 02.08.2010 by respondent No. 10 has not been challenged in any proceeding or set aside by any court of law, as such, the mutation of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010, cannot be denied. So far as the ceiling proceeding is concerned, the Urban Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Government in the year 1999, as such, the final order was passed in favour of the land owner i.e. father of respondent No. 10 due to repeal of the Urban Ceiling Act, as such, the mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010 executed by respondent No. 10 cannot be set aside in appeal, filed by private respondent No. 9. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate court will be necessary which is as follows: 10. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate court will be necessary which is as follows: 10. A perusal of the appellate order, it would reflect that the appellate court has also held that respondent No. 9 shall not accrue any right on the basis of agreement to sale set up by him, as such, an order of mutation passed by the Naib Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner, cannot be set aside as property should be recorded in favour of person who is legally entitled. So far as the pendency of the civil suit is concerned, the same will abide the order passed in the instant mutation proceeding but the mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by respondent No. 10, cannot be recalled/set aside unless the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is set aside in any legal proceeding. 11. It is also material that respondent No. 10 has filed an affidavit before this Court through Mr. Mohd. Ahmed, Advocate, in which he admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as well as execution of delivery of possession to the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that no agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995 has been executed by his father in favour of respondent No. 9, the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 10 before this Court are as follows: Affidavit of Shiv Kumar aged about 66 year S/o Hanshoo, Resident of 68/81, Neem Sarai Pergana & Tahsil-Sadar, District-Allahabad. “7. That the contents made in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition is totally false and incorrect and denied. In fact, no alleged agreement to sale dated 18.10.1995 of an area 367.6 sq. mtr. of the total area 0.2890 hectare, was executed by father of deponent, namely, Late Hanshoo and no possession was given to the respondent No. 9 by father of deponent. It is further stated that the alleged agreement to sale instrument is null and void and exponential/showy and aforesaid instruments obtained by respondent No. 9 by playing fraud. 8. That the contents made in paragraph Nos.8 to 16 of the aforesaid writ petition need no reply because all the annexure filed by petitioner are matter of record. 9. That the contents made in paragraph Nos. 8. That the contents made in paragraph Nos.8 to 16 of the aforesaid writ petition need no reply because all the annexure filed by petitioner are matter of record. 9. That the contents made in paragraph Nos. 17 to 29 of the aforesaid writ petition needs no reply. It is further stated that deponent has no interest in the property in question now because deponent has already sold to the petitioner as well as possession was delivered to the petitioner by deponent at the time of execution of sale deed. Thereafter, petitioner has made construction over the plot in question and also in possession of the property in question.” 12. The arguments advanced by counsel for respondent No. 9 that subsequently a registered sale deed has been executed by respondent No. 10 in his favour and the petitioner has challenged that registered sale deed in the civil court, as such no interference is required in this matter is misconceived as the mutation order dated 05.03.2011 was passed on the basis of the registered sale deed executed on 02.08.2010 by respondent No. 10 in favour of petitioner and the execution of the sale deed has been admitted by respondent No. 10 before this Court, as such, the mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner cannot be set aside in appeal filed by respondent No. 9 in the year 2011-12 when there was no sale deed in favour of respondent No. 9 rather he was claiming on the basis of alleged agreement to sale. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 19.01.2018, passed by respondent No. 2 and 26.02.2014, passed by respondent No. 4 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 14. The writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioner is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.