A UP court, acting in first appellate jurisdiction set aside a trial court decree in a long-pending land dispute relating to the Suncity Anantam township at Vrindavan, holding that a sale deed executed in 2007 was void as the land was already under land acquisition proceedings at the relevant time. The Court clarified that the ruling does not cancel the project and is confined to the validity of the sale deed and interim protection.

The order was passed by the District Court, Mathura, hearing the matter as a first appellate court, against judgments dated December 18, 2018 and January 10, 2019, by which the trial court had upheld the impugned transaction.

The dispute concerns Khasra No. 393, measuring about 7.486 hectares, which formed part of land notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Despite the initiation of acquisition proceedings, a registered sale deed dated January 11, 2007 was executed in favour of the developer. Allowing the appeals, the Court held that once acquisition proceedings commence, the rights of landholders stand restricted, and any private transfer effected thereafter cannot convey valid title, irrespective of registration or consideration.

While granting relief to the appellants (landholders/farmers), the Court imposed a temporary restraint on further construction and creation of third-party rights over the disputed land. The restraint was expressly described as interim, intended to preserve the subject matter pending final determination under acquisition proceedings, and not as a direction cancelling the township or ordering demolition.

Taking note of equities, the court also permitted the developer to seek refund of the sale consideration of ₹2.65 crore within six months, observing that the invalidation of the sale deed flowed from statutory consequences of land acquisition law, not from any adjudicated finding of fraud or wrongdoing.

Reiterating settled law, the Court held that land acquisition overrides private transactions, and sale deeds executed after the initiation of acquisition proceedings are legally unenforceable. The court clarified that the ruling is limited to the legality of the 2007 sale deed and does not finally determine ownership, which remains subject to the outcome of acquisition-related proceedings.