JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Present proceedings are arising out of suit filed U/s 229 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed by State of U.P. through Collector, Varanasi against ancestors of present petitioner as well as against contesting respondents on ground that original tenure-holder has died issueless, therefore, land was vested in State/Gaon Sabha. Suit was objected by contesting respondents on ground that before death of said tenure holder, he had executed a sale deed in their favour which has not been set aside by any competent Court. 2. The suit was decreed vide order dated 10.09.2015 mainly on ground that since in an FIR lodged against contesting respondents as well as present petitioner also, it was mentioned that the sale deed was executed by an imposter of original tenure holder and therefore, no claim could be sought on basis of sale deed. Accordingly, it was directed that land in dispute be recorded in name of Gaon Sabha under Clause 5-A. Relevant part of order is quoted below:- 3. Aforesaid order was challenged at the behest of contesting respondents by way of filing a first appeal before Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi which was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2017 mainly taking note of above referred reasons assigned by trial Court. For reference, relevant paragraph thereof is quoted below:- 4. In aforesaid circumstances, contesting respondents filed a second appeal before Board of Revenue wherein following questions of law were framed:- 1- Whether the Lower Court passed the impugned orders against the evidence available on the records and against the provisions of the law? 2- Whether proceedings under Section 189 read with Section 184 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be held in the matter during the pendency of Civil Suit for the cancellation of sale-deeds in question or not? 3- Whether the suit filed by the opposite party was maintainable and sale-deeds in question have been executed by real owner Shri Ram Son of Ragghu or by some imposter as held by the learned lower Courts? 4- Whether till the existence of valid sale deeds dated 28.02.1984, 18.05.1985 and 17.09.1996 validly executed by the real owners of the land in question, can be vested in the state of U.P. or Gaon Sabha concern under the Section 189 read with Section 184 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or not?” 5. 4- Whether till the existence of valid sale deeds dated 28.02.1984, 18.05.1985 and 17.09.1996 validly executed by the real owners of the land in question, can be vested in the state of U.P. or Gaon Sabha concern under the Section 189 read with Section 184 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or not?” 5. Second appeal was allowed by impugned order dated 12.09.2024 mainly on ground that till date, sale deed executed in favour of appellants was not set aside by any competent Court. Board of Revenue has also taken note that sale deed dated 28.02.1984 has already been set aside by Civil Court which was executed in favour of petitioner’s mother and some of contesting respondents, however, in present case is in regard to sale deed dated 28.05.1984 which still has not been set aside though according to parties, a suit is still pending at the behest of Gaon Sabha, but the present status of it is not on record. 6. Sri V.B. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was one of defendants in suit filed by Gaon Sabha as well as a sale deed executed in his favour also. Sale deed dated 28.02.1984 has already been set aside. Gaon Sabha has not approached this Court and petitioner is before this Court. 7. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents, at the outset, submits that present writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of petitioner since he is not an aggrieved party and cannot espouse cause of Gaon Sabha. A plausible reason for him to approach this Court may be only that sale deed executed in his favour has already been set aside but that cannot be a ground to approach this Court with a prayer that land has to be vested in Gaon Sabha. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, I have carefully perused material on record and I am of considered opinion that at this stage, it is an admitted position that sale deed dated 28.02.1984 executed in favour of contesting respondents has not been set aside till date though according to instructions of parties, a suit for cancellation of sale deed filed at the behest of Gaon Sabha/State is still pending. 9. 9. In impugned order dated 12.09.2024, Board of Revenue has taken note about aforesaid facts that sale deed dated 28.02.1984 has not been set aside till date though a reference about nomenclature of suit was wrongly mentioned since it appears that suit was filed U/s 229 of Act of 1950 i.e. under a correct provision. 10. Court has also considered that trial Court while allowing the suit has taken note of only the contents of first information report that sale deed was executed by imposter but it is well settled position of law that contents of FIR cannot be a ground to allow the suit since it has to be decided on basis of evidence led on issues framed. Evidence cannot be borrowed from another proceedings and, therefore, Board of Revenue has rightly interfered that sale deed dated 28.02.1984 is still in force and not set aside by any Civil Court. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no legal error in impugned order as well as petitioner could not fall within category of aggrieved person to file present writ petition. It is clarified since it has been informed that a suit is pending at the behest of Gaon Sabha for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.02.1984, therefore, legal consequence of its outcome will follow, if there is no legal impediment. 12. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order, therefore, this writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed with above observations.