Agreements to sell do not confer any interest in land, and thus do not entitle the holder to compensation post-acquisition, as per the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh and Shri Anas Mahboob, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut in Reference Case No. 381 of 2023 ( Kailash and others v. Hamid and others ).

3. Brief facts of the case are that disputed land is Khasra No. 346 & 426, situated at village Bijwali, Tehsil & District Meerut. Agreement to sell were executed by the recorded tenure holders in favour of the petitioners regarding part of land of Khasra No. 346 & 426 referred above. When the sale deed was not executed in pursuance of agreements, various suits were filed for specific performance of an agreement, details of which are as under:

(1) Original Suit No. 21 of 2017 was instituted by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 against respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and predecessor in interest of respondent no. 9 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.01.2013 regarding the 14/8 portion of Khasra No. 426, area 0.487375 hec. The consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 43,86,000/- and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid towards earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 39,86,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The time for execution of sale deed was one year from the date of execution of the agreement. The said suit was filed on 09.01.2017, which is pending before Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut and the trial court by order dated 31.05.2018, directed the defendants/respondents not to alienate the property in dispute to any other person.

(2) Original Suit No. 85 of 2017 was instituted by petitioner no. 9 against respondent nos. 1 to 6 and predecessor in interest of respondent no. 9.1, 9.10 & 9.11 for specific performance of an agreement dated 25.08.2013 regarding their share 1/6 share in Khasra No. 426 area 1.1140 hec., situated at village Bijauli, Tehsil & District Meerut. The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 8,36,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The date of execution was fixed as 26.02.2014.

(3) Original Suit No. 117 of 2017 was instituted by petitioner no. 1, against one Satyawati predecessor in interest of respondent no. 1 to 4, regarding their 1/4 share in Khasra No. 346 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.01.2013. The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 13,59,000/- out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. In the said suit, an alternative prayer was made for refund of earnest money. By an interim injunction order dated 14.12.2017, the trial court restrained the defendants from alienating their 1/6 share in Khasra No. 346 and also directed the parties to maintain status quo.

(4) Original Suit No. 126 of 2017 was instituted by petitioner no. 10 against respondent nos. 1 to 6 and predecessor in interest of respondent no. 9.1, 9.10 & 9.11 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.08.2013 regarding Khasra No. 426. The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 12,12,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money.

(5) Original Suit No. 135 of 2017 was instituted by petitioner nos. 5 & 6 against respondent nos. 1 to 6 and predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 9.1, 9.10 & 9.1