Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—The question involved in the writ petition is as to whether contract of sale (agreement to sale) constitutes transfer within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, in case, it does not constitute transfer, whether mutation under Section 34 of the of the Land Revenue Act could be attested by the Tehsildar on the basis of contract of sale (agreement to sale). In order to address this question, certain facts are required to be noted:

2. An agreement to sale was executed by one Bakshi Singh (deceased) in favour of Chimman Lal, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 on 28.6.1974 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- in respect of plot No. 201/1, area 15-19-13. The agreement was followed by delivery of possession to Sri Chimman Lal. On the death of Chimman Lal, an application was moved by husband of respondent No. 1 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for deleting the name of Bakshi Singh from revenue record. The mutation application was allowed and it was directed that the name of Suresh Chandra son of Chimman Lal, husband of respondent No. 1 be recorded in Column 9. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 4.2.2000, which was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hathras vide order dated 10.1.2003. A revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 8.3.2007. Under these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

3. Before appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to note that some cases were filed by the parties before various Courts. The details are given here-in-below :

(i) Civil Suit No. 414 of 1976 (Baskshi Singh v. Chimman Lal) was filed for cancellation of the agreement to sale executed in the year 1974. The suit was dismissed.

(ii) Civil Suit No. 88 of 1988 for permenant injunction (Suresh Chandra v. Bakshi Singh) was filed in which interim stay was granted by the Court.

(iii) Another suit was filed by one Pooran Devi, co-tenure holder for being declared as Bhumidhar of the plot. The Suit No. 414 of 1976 was decreed. The entry in the name of Bakshi Singh in column-9 was deleted.

(iv) Civil Suit No. 15/4-11-87 of 1987 (Bakshi Singh and others v. State of U.P.) was filed under Section 229-B of the Act to declare him bhumidhar of the land and to expunge the name of Leeladhar and others on the ground that he was in possession of the same. An application for impleadment was filed by respondent No. 1 in the said suit.

(v) One Civil Suit No. of 2003 (Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. and others) was filed. Both the suits were consolidated. During pendency of the suit, Bakshi Singh died.

4. The husband of respondent No. 1 Suresh Chandra Kalra also died on 23.6.2006 during pendency of the suit and on the basis of a registered will dated 22.2.2005 executed by Suresh Chandra Kalra in favour of respondent No. 1, she was substituted in place of her husband. A decree was passed by the Court on [30.3.2009]1 declaring her to be bhumidhar of Khasra No. 201/1 which is recorded in the revenue record as Plot 201/4 area 3.684 situate in Garhi Khandari, Pargana and Tehsil Hathras, District Hathras.

5. The litigative history of these cases reveals that the status of Bakshi Singh who was recorded in column-9 of the Land Revenue Maunal was of unauthorised occupant. The question involved for consideration is as to whether Bakshi Singh could have executed an agreement to sale in favour of Chimman Lal when his status was of unauthorised occupant.

6. Under the scheme of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 (in short as the ‘the Act’), four types of persons have been classified as tenure holders :

(i) Bhumidhar with transferable rights;

(ii) Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights;

(iii) Assami; and

(iv) Government lessee.

Section-4 of the Act provides that after publication of the notification under Section-4 of the Act, the State Government may by general or special order to be published in