UP Government Took Ayodhya Temple Land by Sale Deed, Then Claimed It Was Nazul Property All Along: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court found that the UP government executed a registered sale deed for temple land adjacent to Ram Janma Bhoomi, took immediate possession at 9 PM on the same night, promised payment within 15 days, and then refused to pay — later claiming the land was government Nazul property that needed no purchase at all.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, sitting at the Lucknow Bench, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, a temple deity situated at Sugriv Kila in Ayodhya, adjacent to the Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple. The petition arose from the State of Uttar Pradesh executing a registered sale deed on 22 December 2023 for 1,512 square metres of temple land, taking physical possession immediately, and then withholding the agreed sale consideration of Rs 1,38,44,559. The Bench, while declining to adjudicate the title dispute that had meanwhile been raised by the State itself in a civil suit, directed the State to deposit the unpaid land cost of Rs 1,20,96,000 along with interest at 8% per annum — computed from the expiry of 15 days after the sale deed — into a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division), within four weeks.
The Sugriv Kila Temple and Its Land Records
The temple at Sugriv Kila claims a continuous presence since time immemorial. Through successive revenue settlements — 1858, 1892, and 1915 — the plot numbers changed (from 214/215 to 101/102 and then to 245/246), but the revenue entries, according to the petitioner, consistently recorded the land in the name of Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman. The petitioner's position was that, despite renumbering, ownership and possession never shifted away from the deity.
The land in question — all that part and portion of 1,512 sq. metres in Khata No. 44/2, Khasra No. 246 — sits in close proximity to the Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple. Development works associated with the Shree Ram Janm Bhoomi Temple led the State authorities to procure land in the area, and it was in this context that the respondent authorities approached the temple's Sarvarahkar (manager), Swami Purshottamacharya, proposing a purchase of a portion of the temple land.
How the Transaction Unfolded
The temple, through its Sarvarahkar, was initially reluctant. The Court noted that the petitioner “had been quite skeptical for selling any portion of the temple Land.” The authorities, invoking public purpose and the development of the Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple, persuaded the Sarvarahkar to enter a Memorandum of Understanding. Several rounds of persuasion followed before the parties agreed on the cost of the land and the cost of existing construction.
A sale deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar on 22 December 2023, recording a total sale consideration of Rs 1,38,44,559. That figure comprised two elements: the cost of 1,512 sq. metres of land at Rs 1,20,96,000 and the cost of the existing tin-shade construction (Bhawan Tin Shade) at Rs 17,48,559. To demonstrate its bona fides, the State even recorded the petitioner's bank account number and IFSC code in the sale deed column meant for payment details, promising transfer via RTGS within 15 days.
The sale deed was registered at 9:00 PM that night. Possession of the portion of the temple land was handed over to the State on the same date. The Bench observed that this sequence — a late-night registration followed by immediate possession — reflected what the petitioner's counsel described as a “tearing hurry” on the part of the authorities.
The 15-day payment window passed without any transfer. The cost of construction (Rs 17,48,559) was eventually paid, but the cost of the land (Rs 1,20,96,000) was not. The petitioner ran from pillar to post, and when no payment came, filed the present writ petition.
The State's Volte-Face: Nazul Land and the Civil Suit
Before the High Court, the State's Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr Pankaj Khare, advanced two reasons for withholding payment. First, the Sarvarahkar was allegedly not authorised to sell the temple property. Second, and more striking, the State contended that the subject land is Nazul land — government land — that was already vested with the State and therefore did not need to be purchased from the petitioner at all.
The State further disclosed that it had filed Civil Suit No. 680 of 2024 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Swami Visvesh Prapancharya) before the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division), seeking cancellation of the very sale deed it had executed and registered.
The Bench found this posture difficult to accept. The Court observed that it was “rather amusing” that the State was simultaneously contesting the title of the land to avoid payment while continuing to remain in possession of that very land. If the State genuinely believed title was disputed, the property ought to have been returned to the petitioner — yet no such restitution was offered.
How the Bench Assessed the State's Conduct
The Division Bench was pointed in its assessment. It found that the respondent authorities had “fooled the petitioner to oust them from the said portion of the temple land in the name of sale-deed” and that the entire sequence appeared to be “well orchestrated” to take possession quickly and then deny legitimate payment.
The Court also turned the principle of Caveat Emptor on its head. In ordinary transactions, a purchaser must examine title before buying. Here, the State — which the Court described as a party that ought to be a welfare State and a model participant in sale transactions — had executed the sale deed, paid stamp duty, registered the instrument, and taken possession, and only afterwards raised the question of its own title. The Bench described this as putting “the cart before the horse.”
The alacrity in taking possession at 9:00 PM on the date of registration, set against the subsequent refusal to pay, led the Bench to conclude that the State “never intended to pay the said sale consideration to the petitioner.”
Notwithstanding this finding on conduct, the Court acknowledged that it could not resolve the title dispute within writ jurisdiction without giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in a full trial. The Bench was therefore constrained to refer the title question to the civil court where the suit was already pending.
The Legal Position Under Section 54, Transfer of Property Act
The Bench relied on two Supreme Court decisions while dealing with the substantive question of whether non-payment of sale consideration affects the validity of a sale deed. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, and the more recent Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1511 : 2026 INSC 814, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to hold that actual payment of the entire sale price at the time of executing a sale deed is not an essential condition for the completion of a sale. Once a sale deed is registered, even upon part payment, title passes to the transferee. The non-payment of the balance does not invalidate the sale; the seller's remedy is to recover the balance consideration, not to seek cancellation of the deed on that ground alone.
This position, the Bench noted, meant that the petitioner's appropriate course was to file a suit for recovery of the balance sale consideration. However, since a suit was already pending at the behest of the State, the Court chose to issue a protective direction rather than leave the petitioner to start a fresh proceeding.
Order
The Bench directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to deposit the unpaid land cost of Rs 1,20,96,000, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date falling 15 days after the execution of the sale deed on 22 December 2023, into an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit of a nationalised bank in the name of the Court of Additional Chief Judge-II (Junior Division). The deposit is to be made within four weeks of the date of the order, i.e., by around 8 September 2026.
The civil court was left free to decide, at its discretion, whether to keep the deposited amount subject to the outcome of the pending suit, or to release part or all of the principal and accrued interest to the petitioner upon an appropriate application being made.
The High Court made clear it had not examined or decided the title dispute over the portion of the temple land. Its observations were confined to the conduct attending the execution of the sale deed and the taking of possession. All questions of law and title were left open for determination by the civil court. The trial court was directed to expedite the suit, with the endeavour to conclude it preferably within one year.
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly on 11 August 2026.