The purpose of the article is to study peculiarities of transactions with agricultural lands in the regions of Ukraine using cluster analysis. Research methods. The research is based on the following economic methods: monographic (studying an experience of the EU member states in developing land relations); system analysis (comparing dynamics of various transactions with agricultural land); statistical (analysis of structure and dynamics of land transactions); graphical (schematic and tabular representation of research results); cluster analysis (grouping of Ukrainian regions according to characteristics of agricultural land transactions). In addition, specificity and peculiarities of land relations development in Ukraine were investigated using cluster analysis, and the results obtained were interpreted using STATA, R. software packages. Research results. The article outlines theoretical approaches to agricultural land transactions. Methodological tool for land use studies, possession and disposal was substantiated. Complex of legal and economic relations that arise during the process of land plot turnover, namely sale and purchase transactions, inheritances, donations, pledges, leases, and emphyteusis, was explored. Structure and dynamics of number of land plots transactions for designated purpose of lands were analysed. Extreme indicators for transactions with agricultural land were determined. Cluster analysis of development level of land relations in different regions of Ukraine was carried out. Use of the Varda method allowed to divide the Ukrainian regions by development level of land relations into three cluster groups. Elements of scientific novelty. For the first time, development level of land relations in Ukraine by means of cluster analysis of transactions with agricultural land plots was analysed. Practical significance. Analysis of land relations development in Ukraine in context of land plots transactions (purchase-sale, inheritance, change-donation, pledge-mortgage, lease and emphyteusis) was carried out. Each transaction was analysed dynamically in the period between 2015 and 2017. For better comparison, the transactions were considered in context of a designated purpose (agricultural and non-agricultural). Figs.: 7. Refs.: 21