A. N Varma, J. - (1.) THE petition has had a chequered history all of which need not be elaborated here in view of the facts which we are presently stating
(2.) THE petition was initially filed for quashing an order dated 3-10- 1989 passed by the District Magistrate/Vice Chairman, Banda Development Authority, Banda whereby he had stayed the operation of a sanction granted by him in favour of the petitioners for construction of a building upon an application filed by the contesting respondents. THE petitioners have also prayed for quashing of a notice dated. 14-10-1989 issued by the District Magistrate/Vice Chairman calling upon the petitioners to appear on a date fixed before him for disposing of the application filed by the contesting respondents with regard to the grant of the sanction to the petitioners. Besides this, certain proceedings which has been initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents before the State Government for the transfer of the proceedings pending on file of Sri Rakesh Garg the then District Magistrate to some other District Magistrate are also sought to be quashed. So far as the transfer proceedings are concerned, the same have become infructuous as admittedly Sri Rakesh Garg has since been transferred. Coming back to the proceedings which were initiated by the contesting respondents by way of an objection against the sanction granted by the District Magistrate to the petitioners, the position is that the sole ground on which the sanction was challenged was based on the allegation that the disputed property belongs to a temple of which the respondents were priests and worshippers and that the petitioners have no right title or interest in the disputed land.
(3.) IT is apparent that the objection of the respondents involves as adjudication of a dispute pertaining to the title to the land in question. IT has consistently been ruled by this court right from the earliest time that disputes pertaining to the title to the property with respect to which sanction is sought cannot and ought not appropriately to be determined in such proceedings. Indeed there is a complete unanimity of opinion on this point, the view expressed being that such an issue is beyond the purview of the proceedings for sanction of the plan, 1945 Alld 393, 1982 Alld. 290, 1980 AWC 637 and finally 1991 ACJ 649.. We are in respectful agreement with the opinion expressed by this Court in the above decisions. It is, however, unnecessary to dilate on this point further beyond stating that the contesting respondents have already instituted a suit raising the same controversy and asserting the same claim, namely, that the petitioners not being the owners of the property are liable to be evicted from the disputed land. A relief for demolition of the construction made by the petitioners pursuant to the sanction granted to them has also been claimed in the suit Annexure-R A-2 purports to be true copy of the plaint. From the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that precisely same issue of title which was urged by the contesting respondents in their objections before the District Magistrate is sought to be canvassed in that civil suit.;