# Bharat Prasad & Ors v. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 986 of 2005
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-prasad-ors-v-d-d-c-sitapur-ors-47339
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act,1950 - Sections 229-B &
331 - Sale Deed - Cancellation of Sale
Deed - whether suit cognizable by the
civil court or the revenue court - Held -
suit for cancellation of sale deed, on the
ground of impersonation, can be filed only
before the civil court & the civil court has
only jurisdiction to decide the suit for
cancellation of sale deed - same can not
be cancelled under Section 229-B - suit
u/s 229-B can be filed for a declaration of
rights against the State Government and
Gaon Sabha, if the State Government or
the Gaon Sabha disputes the title of the
claimant as Bhumidhar or Sirdar - in case
title is denied by a person other than State
Government or Gaon Sabha the Revenue
Court will have no jurisdiction and the
jurisdiction will lie before the civil court -
as the civil court has jurisdiction of all civil
suits of civil nature except those which
are ignored or barred under any law - a
decree for declaration is not an effective
or alternative relief which may be claimed
in substitution of the relief for cancellation
of sale deed (Para 13, 14)

B. Sale Deed - Cancellation of Sale Deed
when required - if the sale deed is void on
the face of it, it requires no cancellation or
declaration as being void, the Revenue
Court, in such a case, could proceed to
determine the rights of the parties - But
when a deed is not void and it becomes
void only on proof of certain facts, the
intervention of the civil court is necessary
for a decision declaring it void (Para 15)

C. Sale Deed - Sale deed questioned on
ground
of
impersonation
before
Consolidation Officer - unless sale deed is
set aside by a competent civil court after
evidence, the same cannot be treated to
be ineffective - the right, title and interest
cannot be denied - it cannot be set aside
or ignored by the revenue or consolidation
courts (Para 21)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All Bharat Prasad & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors.
1105
been dismissed holding that the entry of the
opposite party no.3 under clause-9 has
rightly been made after issuance of the PA10 in accordance with law, therefore the
possession of the opposite party no.3 has
rightly been found from 1368 Fasli and no
evidence
has
been
adduced
by
the
petitioner which may indicate that the
petitioner has ever evicted the opposite
party no.3 from the land in dispute and the
petitioner has failed to produce any
constructive, oral and written evidence,
accordingly held that the opposite party
no.3 has matured his right on the basis of
adverse possession and dismissed the
revision. But the revisional court failed to
consider the legal position in regard to the
entry under clause-9 on the basis of PA-10
as discussed above. In case the entry was
made in the name of the opposite party no.3
under clause-9 on the basis of PA-10 it was
incumbent upon the opposite party no.3 to
prove by adducing cogent evidence that the
same was made in accordance with law and
the PA-10 was served on the original tenure
holder. It was also required to be proved as
to when the opposite party no.3 entered
into the possession in the knowledge of the
petitioner and continued his possession for
the required period. But it has not been
proved by the opposite party no.3 and no
finding has been recorded in this regard.

21. In the present case, as per the
findings, recorded by the Consolidation
Officer, there was contradiction in the
evidence in regard to the possession of the
petitioner and the entry, which finding has
not been set aside by the appellate or
revisional authority. None of the courts have
recorded the finding in regard to adverse
possession in accordance with law and Land
Records Manual and the service of PA-10 on
the original tenure holder, which was
mandatory. Therefore this Court is of the
view that the opposite party no.3 has failed to
prove his adverse possession on the land in
dispute, therefore his claim was not
sustainable, so no fruitful purpose would be
served by remanding the case and it will be a
futile exercise.

22. In view of above and considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the
eyes of law and liable to be quashed and the
writ petition is liable to be allowed.

23. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
The
impugned
orders
dated
05.11.1981 and 22.05.1985 passed by
Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation
and order dated 28.11.1985 passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur are
hereby quashed. No order as to cost.

24. The Lekhpal diary be returned
forthwith.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 986 of 2005

Bharat Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
K.N. Srivastava, S.C. Sitapuri

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashish Srivastava, Manoj Kumar
Srivastava, Narendra Gupta, Sudhir Kumar
Misra
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act,1950 - Sections 229-B &
331 - Sale Deed - Cancellation of Sale
Deed - whether suit cognizable by the
civil court or the revenue court - Held -
suit for cancellation of sale deed, on the
ground of impersonation, can be filed only
before the civil court & the civil court has
only jurisdiction to decide the suit for
cancellation of sale deed - same can not
be cancelled under Section 229-B - suit
u/s 229-B can be filed for a declaration of
rights against the State Government and
Gaon Sabha, if the State Government or
the Gaon Sabha disputes the title of the
claimant as Bhumidhar or Sirdar - in case
title is denied by a person other than State
Government or Gaon Sabha the Revenue
Court will have no jurisdiction and the
jurisdiction will lie before the civil court -
as the civil court has jurisdiction of all civil
suits of civil nature except those which
are ignored or barred under any law - a
decree for declaration is not an effective
or alternative relief which may be claimed
in substitution of the relief for cancellation
of sale deed (Para 13, 14)

B. Sale Deed - Cancellation of Sale Deed
when required - if the sale deed is void on
the face of it, it requires no cancellation or
declaration as being void, the Revenue
Court, in such a case, could proceed to
determine the rights of the parties - But
when a deed is not void and it becomes
void only on proof of certain facts, the
intervention of the civil court is necessary
for a decision declaring it void (Para 15)

C. Sale Deed - Sale deed questioned on
ground
of
impersonation
before
Consolidation Officer - unless sale deed is
set aside by a competent civil court after
evidence, the same cannot be treated to
be ineffective - the right, title and interest
cannot be denied - it cannot be set aside
or ignored by the revenue or consolidation
courts (Para 21)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Indra Pal & ors. Vs Jagannath & ors. 1993
(11) LCD 45

2. Sumesar & ors. Vs Smt. Mangla 1993 (11)
LCD 533

3. Tej Bhan Singh & ors. Vs II A.D.J., Jaunpur
ACJ 1994 P.911

4. Smt. Dularia Devi Vs Janardan Singh & ors.
1990 AIR 1173

5. Kamla Prasad & ors. Vs Sri Krishna Kant
Pathak & ors. (2007) 4 SCC 213

6. Smt. Ramdei (Dead) through LRs & ors. Vs
Rampati @ Rupa Devi & anr. 2005 (23) LCD 829

7.
Indra
Deo
&
ors.
Vs
Ram
Pyari
Manu/UP/1126/1982, 1982 (8) ALR 517

8. Smt. Rasheedan Vs Amar Singh & ors. 1997
(3) AWC 1695

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.C. Sitapuri, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sudhir
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the
judgment and order dated 05.07.2005 passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Sitapur (here-in-after referred as DDC,
Sitapur)
in
Revision
No.302/283/270/266/204/80//66, Cheddu and
Others Vs. Bharat and Others, under Section
48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 and for a writ of mandamus to the
opposite parties not to disturb the petitioners'
possession over the disputed land i.e. Gata
No.408 (Khata No.120).

3. The land in dispute was originally
owned by late Aziz Khan S/o Pahelwan
9 All Bharat Prasad & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors.
1107
Khan .He sold the land to the petitioners
namely Bharat Prasad, Ram Pal, Bhagwan
Deen, Ramhetu and Raja Ram through a
registered sale deed on 03.09.1982. In
pursuance thereof the petitioners filed a
mutation case which was decided in their
favour and the names of the petitioners
were recorded. One Israr, claiming him to
be nephew of late Aziz Khan, filed a suit
bearing no.423 of 1982 for cancellation of
sale deed dated 03.09.1982 before the
Munsif, Sitapur. The suit was dismissed by
means of the order dated 29.05.1984. Israr
filed a Civil Appeal No.83 of 1984 against
the said order which was dismissed by
means of the order dated 13.03.1985
holding that the suit was not triable by the
civil court and it could have only been
instituted before the Revenue Court. It was
also held that the findings drawn by the
learned Munsif will have no effect on the
right, title and interest of the parties of the
suit as the same was without jurisdiction. It
appears that Israr had not filed any suit
thereafter before the Revenue Court.
However, one late Cheddu filed an
objection under Section-9A(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein-after referred as the Act) before the
Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year
1993 stating that the suit was filed under
Section 229-B by him for declaration. The
suit was abated on account of start of the
consolidation proceedings. The objection
was allowed by the Consolidation Officer,
Sitapur by means of the order dated
26.11.1998. The petitioners filed an appeal
under Section 11(1) of the Act before the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation which
was allowed by means of the order dated
06.02.1999. Hence the opposite parties no.2
to 5 filed a revision under Section-48 of the
Act before the D.D.C., Sitapur. The
revision was allowed by means of the order
dated

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
had submitted that the petitioners are the
recorded tenure holders of the land in
dispute on the basis of registered sale deed
executed by late Aziz Khan. In mutation
proceedings, on the basis of said sale deed,
no objection was filed by the opposite
parties. Israr or anybody else had not filed
any application for mutation on the basis of
succession. The suit filed by Israr was
dismissed by the civil court on merit after
considering the pleadings and evidence
adduced before it. The appeal was
dismissed on the ground that the suit can be
filed before the Revenue Court. The said
order was not challenged. There is no
evidence that any suit was filed before the
Revenue Court. He further submitted that
the sale deed in favour of the petitioners
has been questioned on the ground of
impersonation by some other person in
place of late Aziz Khan, therefore the
Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to cancel
it or declare void. It can be cancelled or
declared void only by the civil court.

5. He further submitted that the
objection under the Act was filed during
consolidation proceedings by late Cheddu,
father of all the opposite parties no.2 to 6
but no objection was filed by Israr. There is
no evidence that the father of the opposite
parties no.2 to 6 was the nephew of late
Aziz Khan, though he has been treated by
the criminal court but that can not have
been relied without any proof in view of
the fact that Israr had claimed himself the
only nephew of late Aziz Khan in the
proceedings before the civil court. There is
no finding on possession but the revision
was allowed. He further submitted that
Israr had claimed that his father has only
two brothers, late Aziz Khan and Ali Sher
Khan and he was son of Ali Sher Khan
whereas in the proceedings before the
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation Officer, five brothers have
claimed but the pedigree was not proved.

6. On the basis of above, learned
counsel for the petitioners had submitted
that the impugned order has been passed
without application of mind in an arbitrary
and illegal manner. Therefore it is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to
be quashed. Learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on Indra Pal & Others
Vs. Jagannath & Others; 1993 (11) LCD
P.45, Sumesar & Others Vs. Smt. Mangla;
1993 (11) LCD P.533 and Tej Bhan Singh
& Others Vs. II Additional District Judge,
Jaunpur; ACJ 1994 P.911.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite parties had submitted that the sale
deed, on the basis of which the petitioners
are claiming, was a void document as it
was got executed by some other person in
place of late Aziz Khan therefore it was a
void document and the same could have
been challenged and declared void by the
Revenue Court. It is settled proposition of
law that after publication of notification
under Section-4 of the Act all the powers
vest in the consolidation courts who can
consider all the questions including the
void document. Accordingly, considering
the same the Consolidation Officer and the
revisional court have rightly decided the
case in favour of the opposite parties by
concurrent finding. There is no illegality or
error in the impugned orders.

8. On the basis of above, learned
counsel for the opposite parties had
submitted
that
the
writ-petition
is
misconceived and lacks merit and is liable
to the dismissed. Learned counsel for the
opposite parties relied on Smt. Dularia
Devi Vs. Janardan Singh & Others; 1990
AIR 1173, Kamla Prasad and Others Vs.
Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and Others;
(2007) 4 SCC 213 and Smt. Ramdei
(Dead) through LRs & Others Vs.
Rampati @ Rupa Devi and Another; 2005
(23) LCD 829.

9. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

10. The name of the petitioners was
recorded on the basis of sale deed executed
by late Aziz Khan by the order dated
17.01.1983 passed by the Naib Tehsildar.
There is no evidence that any appeal was
filed against the said order. One Israr had
filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed
dated 03.09.1982 executed in favour of the
petitioners. Israr had given a pedigree in
suit in which he had shown that the
Pahelwan Khan had two sons namely Aziz
Khan and Ali Sher Khan and Israr was the
son of Ali Sher Khan. However, it appears
that during evidence he had stated that
Pahelwan Khan had three other successors
but he could not prove that he was nephew
of late Aziz Khan. The suit was dismissed
on merit after evidence by means of the
judgment and order dated 29.05.1984. The
civil appeal filed by Israr was dismissed by
the District Judge on the ground that the
remedy lies before the Revenue Court. Israr
had not filed any suit before the Revenue
Court because no evidence was adduced at
any stage in this regard or filing of suit by
any body else. Only an assertion was made
during consolidation proceedings in the
objection filed on 15.03.1993 by the father
of the opposite parties no.2 to 6 late
Cheddu and one another showing a
different pedigree but no objection was
filed by Israr or any body else. The
pedigree was also not proved. The
Consolidation
Officer
allowed
the
objection by means of the order dated
9 All Bharat Prasad & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors.
1109
26.11.1998. The said order has not been
filed before this Court.

11. The petitioners filed an appeal
before
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation. The Appellate Authority
recorded that the main issue in the case to
be decided is as to whether the name of the
petitioners, on the basis of sale deed, has
rightly been recorded or not. The Appellate
Authority held that unless the sale deed is
cancelled by the competent court, the same
can not be treated to be ineffective. No
evidence has been filed which may prove
that the sale deed has been cancelled by the
competent
court.
The
name
of
the
petitioners has been mutated on the basis of
sale deed. The sale deed was proved by the
marginal witnesses therefore it could not be
disbelieved. It has further been recorded
that the order passed by the civil court will
have no bearing on this case because it has
been held by the Additional District Judge
that the civil court has no jurisdiction to
cancel the sale deed. Therefore, the expert
opinion of thumb impression given therein
has no relevance. The appeal was allowed
and the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer was set-aside and it was provided
that the entries made in the revenue record
in favour of the petitioners shall continue.

12. The Revisional Authorities, on the
basis of evidence of late Cheddu Khan and
Salik Ram, held that late Aziz Khan had
put his thumb impression on Takabi
Register while taking loan which was not
tallied by the thumb impression of late Aziz
Khan on Register No.8 of the SubRegistrar's office by the finger print expert,
who found that they are different and also
on the basis of findings recorded by the
Civil Court and Criminal Court held that
the sale deed was got executed by
impersonation therefore they are not
entitled for title, right and interest on the
basis of said sale deed. However it appears
that the said registers were neither
produced nor got proved by the person
competent i.e. who keeps it and before
whom the thumb impressions were put in
due course of functioning. The revisional
court
recorded
a
finding
that
the
Consolidation Officer has not committed
any error or illegality in recording the name
of the revisionist who are the nephew of
late Aziz Khan without any evidence or
proof that they are the nephew of late Aziz
Khan. It is also apparent that the original
file of civil court was summoned, perused
and considered because after writing it, the
same was deleted, while in view of order of
Additional District Judge the same could
not have been considered. Therefore the
findings recorded by the revisional court
are not sustainable.

13. The name of the petitioners was
recorded on the basis of registered sale
deed, which has been questioned by the
opposite parties on the ground that it is
void document because it was got executed
by impersonation. But the sale deed was
not challenged by late Aziz Khan and it
was challenged only by Israr showing the
pedigree in which his father had only two
brothers, whereas before the consolidation
court five brothers have been claimed but
nothing could be shown before this Court
that the pedigree was proved by the
opposite parties in any manner and it was
also not proved that the opposite parties
were the nephew of late Aziz Khan. The
objection was also filed by only late
Cheddu and one another. The civil court
had also in the suit for cancellation found
that Israr had failed to prove that he was
nephew of late Aziz Khan though the
Additional District Judge in civil appeal
held that the finding drawn by the learned
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Munsif will have no effect on the title, right
and interest of the parties to the suit as the
findings are without jurisdiction. But in
such situation it was required to be proved
by cogent evidence that the objectors were
the nephew and legal heirs of late Aziz
Khan. The said order was not challenged
whereas the suit for cancellation of sale
deed, on the ground of impersonation, can
be filed only before the civil court and the
civil court has only jurisdiction to decide
the suit for cancellation of sale deed. The
same can not be cancelled under Section
229-B because the suit under Section 229B can be filed for a declaration of his rights
against the State Government and Gaon
Sabha
whereas
the
civil
court
has
jurisdiction of all civil suits of civil nature
except those which are ignored or barred
under any law. Therefore if the State
Government or the Gaon Sabha disputes
the title of the claimant as Bhumidhar or
Sirdar the suit under Section 229-B can be
filed. But in case the title is denied by a
person other than State Government or
Gaon Sabha the Revenue Court will have
no jurisdiction and the jurisdiction will lie
before the civil court.

14. This Court considered the issues in
the case of Indra Deo and Others Vs. Ram
Pyari; Manu/UP/1126/1982, 1982 (8) ALR
517 and held that a decree for declaration is
not an effective or alternative relief which
may be claimed in substitution of the relief
for cancellation of sale deed because the suit
under Section 229-B would be necessary
only if the State Government or Gaon Sabha
dispute the title of plaintiff but if some other
person disputes, the remedy would be before
the civil court. The paragraph-21 is extracted
below:-

"21. From the above it is clear
that Section 229-B(3) contemplates a suit
for declaration by a Bhumidhar or Sirdar
against the State Government and the Gaon
Sabha. Such a suit would be necessary
when the plaintiffs' title is not recognised
either by the State Government or by the
Gaon Sabha. The occasion for filing such a
suit will not arise when the title of the
plaintiff is denied by a person other than
the State Government and the Gaon Sabha.
Therefore, under the provisions of the Act
itself, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
would not be barred when declaration is
sought
against
a
person
who
has
transferred agricultural property which the
plaintiff comes to be his. Section 229-B
does not compete all / oil kinds of
declaratory suits. It deals with declaratory
suits of the specific type herein before
mentioned. The section came up for
interpretation before a Division Bench of
this Court in Parsottam v. Narottam and
Another MANU/UP/0255/1970; 1970 R.D.
2016. The Division Bench observed as
follows:--

"Section 229-B of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
is the only section which deals with
declaratory suits relating to agricultural
land. The question arises as to whether this
section covers declaratory suits of all kinds
or is limited only to suits of a particular
category. Sub-Section (1) of Section 229-B
provides for a suit for declaration by an
Asami against the land holder and says in
Sub-section (2) that in such a suit any other
person claiming Asami rights in the land in
suit shall be impleaded as a defendant, subsection (3) of that section makes the
provision of sub-sections (1) and (2)
applicable mutatis mutandis to a suit by a
Bhumidhar or Sirdar with the amendment
that instead of the land holder "State
Government and Gaon Sabha" shall be
substitutes in other words a suit for the
9 All Bharat Prasad & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors.
1111
declaration of Bhumidhari or Sirdari rights
is to he filed against the State Government
and the Gaon Sabha and any other person
who claims Bhumidhari or Sirdari rights in
such land has also to be impleaded as a
party.
The
suit
contemplate
by
the
provisions of Section 229-B is directed
primarily against the State Government
and the Gaon Sabha. Now such a suit
would be necessary only if the State
Government of the Gaon sabha disputes the
plaintiff's title as a Bhumidhar or Sirdar. If
the State Government or the Gaon Sabha
does not dispute the claim of the plaintiff
such a suit would not lie under Section
229-B of the Act merely because some
other person disputes the plaintiff's claim."

15. This Court, in the case of Smt.
Rasheedan Vs. Amar Singh and Others;
1997 (3) AWC 1695, has held that if the deed
is void on the face of it, it requires no
cancellation or declaration as being void, the
Revenue Court, in such a case, could proceed
to determine the rights of the parties. But when
a deed is not void and it becomes void only on
proof of certain facts, the intervention of the
civil court is necessary for a decision declaring
it void because it can be made by the civil
court only. In the present case the validity of
the sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioners has been questioned on the ground
of impersonation which can be examined only
by the civil court after evidence. In the case of
impersonation, it is required to be proved by
cogent evidence that the sale deed has not been
executed by person, having right, title or
interest and by any other person. In the present
case the registered sale deed has been proved
by the marginal witnesses in the mutation
proceedings which was not challenged by
anybody.

16. In the case of Indra Pal and
Others Vs. Jagannath and Others (Supra),
it has been held that the essence of matter
in deciding whether the suit is cognizable
by the civil court or the revenue court is
whether Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act is
attracted to the facts of the case. If in
substance, the main question involved
relates to declaration of right or title, then
the suit would lie in the revenue court and
not in the civil court. But it is not the case
in the present case.

17. This Court, in the case of
Sumesar and Others Vs. Smt. Mangla
(Supra),
has
held
that
a
suit
for
cancellation of sale deed did lay in civil
court. The relevant paragraph nos.16 to 18
are extracted below:-

"16. Considering the provisions
of Section 31 Specific Relief Act and
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, this
court, in the cases of Indra Deva V. Ram
Pyari, reported in (1982 ALJ 1308) and
the case of Ram Padarath v. II Additional.
District Judge (1988 (6) LCD 565) has laid
down the law to the effect that the suit for
cancellation of sale deed whether void or
voidable is maintainable in the Civil Court.
Their Lordships in Ram Padarath (Supra)
have laid down the law to the following
effect:

"We are of the view that the case
of Indra Deva v. Smt. Ram Pyari, 1982
ALJ 1308 has been correctly decided and
said decision requires no consideration,
while Division Bench Case in Dr. Ayodhya
Prasad V. Gangotri is regarding the
jurisdiction of consolidation authorities but
so far as it holds that suit in respect of void
documents will lie in Revenue Court it does
not lay down a god law. Suit and Action for
cancellation
of
void
documents
will
generally lie in Civil Court and a party
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be deprived of his right getting this
relief permissible under law except when a
declaration of right of status is necessarily
needed in which even relief for cancellation
will be surplusage and redundant . A
recorded tenure holder having prima-facie
title in his favour can hardly be directed to
approach the Revenue Court in seeking
relief for cancellation of void document
which made him to approach the Court of
law and in such case he can also claim
ancillary relief even though the same can
be granted by the Revenue Court."

17. In the case of Mst. Bismillah
v. Janeshwar Prasad reported in [1990
(11) LCD 536 (SC)] the Supreme Court has
followed with affirmance the view and law
laid down in Ram Padarath's case.

18. In this view of the matter
there is no substance in this contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant, and I
hold that the suit for cancellation of sale
deed did lay in Civil court and that section
331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act did not bar it.
Learned counsel further contended that the
finding of the court below that the deed has
been obtained by misrepresentation and
fraud and that the plaintiff did not execute
the sale-deed with full understanding is
incorrect and is liable to be set aside and
that learned court below wrongly held that
the sale deeds were without consideration
and further that they were not read over
and explained to the plaintiff vendor. This
is a question of appreciation of evidence.

18. This Court, in the case of Tej
Bhan Singh and Others Vs. II Additional
District Judge, Jaunpur (Supra), has also
passed order relying on the judgment of full
Bench in the case of Ram Padarath and
Others v. II Additional District Judge,
Sultanpur; 1988 (6) LCD 565. Similar view
has been taken by this Court in the case of
Smt. Ramdei (dead) through Lrs and
Others Vs. Rampati @ Rupa Devi and
Others (Supra). The relevant paragraph 14
is extracted below:-

14. There are two kinds of deeds,
whose validity is normally challenged,
namely,
void
and
voidable.
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dhurandhar Prasad
Singh v. Jai Prakash University and
Ors.2001 (Suppl) RD 342, has elaborately
dealt with distinction in two types of deeds.
In Paragraph 20 of the said judgment the
expression 'void' has been said to have
several facets, amongst which one type is of
those void acts, transactions, decrees which
are wholly without jurisdiction. Such acts
and transactions etc are void ab initio and
for avoiding them no declaration is
necessary as it can be disregarded in
collateral proceeding as the law does not
take notice of it. Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that there may be other type
of void acts which may not be nullity but
for avoiding the same a declaration has to
be made. An example has also been cited.
The relevant portion of Para 20 is
extracted herebelow for ready reference:

"The
expression
"void"
has
several facets. One type of void acts,
transactions, decrees are those which are
wholly without jurisdiction, ab-initio void
and for avoiding the same no declaration is
necessary, law does not take any notice of
the same and it can be disregarded in
collateral proceeding or otherwise. The
other type of void act, e.g., may be
transaction against a minor without being
represented by a next friend. Such a
transaction is good transaction against the
whole world. So far the minor is concerned,
if he decides to avoid the same and
succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse
9 All Bharat Prasad & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Sitapur & Ors.
1113
to appropriate proceeding the transaction
becomes void from the very beginning.
Another type of void act may be which is
not nullity but for avoiding the same a
declaration has to be made. Voidable act is
that which is a good act unless avoidable,
e.g., if a suit is filed for declaration that a
document is fraudulent and/or forged and
fabricated. It is voidable as apparent state
of affairs is real state of affairs and a party
who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove
it. If it is proved that the document is
forged and fabricated and a declaration to
that effect is given a transaction becomes
void from the very beginning. There may be
a voidable transaction which is required to
be set aside and the same is avoided from
the day, it is so set aside and not any day
prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a
document cannot be taken away without
setting aside the same, it cannot be treated
to be void but would be obviously
voidable."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Kamla Prasad and Others Vs.
Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and Others
(Supra), has held in paragraph 14, 15 and
16 as under:-

"14. In this connection, the
learned counsel for the appellant rightly
relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri
Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge &
Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 24. In Shri Ram, A, the
original owner of the land sold it to B by a
registered sale deed and also delivered
possession and the name of the purchaser
was entered into Revenue Records after
mutation. According to the plaintiff, sale
deed was forged and was liable to be
cancelled. In the light of the above fact, this
Court held that it was only a Civil Court
which could entertain, try and decide such
suit. The Court, after considering relevant
case law on the point, held that where a
recorded tenure holder having a title and in
possession of property files a suit in Civil
Court for cancellation of sale deed
obtained by fraud or impersonation could
not be directed to institute such suit for
declaration in Revenue Court, the reason
being that in such a case, prima facie, the
title of the recorded tenure holder is not
under
cloud.
He
does
not
require
declaration of his title to the land."

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Smt. Dulariya Devi Vs. Janardhan
Singh and Others (Supra) has held that a
voidable document is one which remains in
force until set aside and such a document
can be set aside only by a competent civil
court. A suit for that purpose would,
therefore, be maintainable. A claim that a
transaction is void is, however, a matter
which can be adjudicated upon by the
consolidation court.

21. In view of above and considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this court is of the view that unless
the sale deed is set aside by a competent
civil court the right, title and interest can
not be denied and it cannot be set aside or
ignored by the revenue or consolidation
courts. Therefore the impugned order is not
sustainable and liable to be quashed with a
direction
to
the
revisional
court
to
reconsider and pass a fresh order in
accordance with law on the basis of
pleadings and evidence adduced before it.

22. The writ petition is, accordingly,
partly allowed. The judgment and order
dated 05.07.2005 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Sitapur in
Revision
No.302/283/270/266/204/80//66
is quashed. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Sitapur i.e. the opposite
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order
in
accordance
with
law
and
the
observations made here-in-above in this
order. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1114
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Consolidation No. 21059 of 2021

Surya Baksh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, Anjani Nath
Khare, Illegible, L.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohiddin Khan

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48(1) -
Revision against interlocutory order is not
maintainable - 'Interlocutory order' means
such order deciding any matter arising in
such case or proceeding or collateral
thereto as does not have the effect to
finally
disposing
of
such
case
or
proceeding

Consolidation Officer after hearing parties on
06.02.2021 fixed date for disposal on the point
of limitation - against which opposite parties
filed revision - D.D.C. admitted the revision and
stayed further proceedings before Consolidation
Officer - Held - by order dated 06.02.2021
nothing was decided by Consolidation Officer,
only date was fixed for disposal on the matter of
limitation - order dated 06.02.2021 does not
decide any lis nor touches on any important
right or liability of any of the parties - order
dated 06.02.2021, being interlocutory revision
against it was not maintainable under S. 48 (1)
of the Act, 1953 (Para 13, 14)

Allowed.(E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1.Veeresh
Singh
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Farrukhabad & ors. 2013 (3) ADJ
702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar
Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 6,
Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 4. Sri Mohan Singh
has accepted notice on behalf of the Gram
Sabha-opposite party no. 5.

2. For the order proposed to be
passed, issuance of notice to opposite party
no. 3 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner filed an application
under Rule 109-A (1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954,
which was time barred and, as such, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act was filed for condonation of delay.

4. The Consolidation Officer after
hearing the learned counsels for both the
sides on 06.02.2021, fixed 11.02.2021 for
disposal on the point of limitation, against
which the private opposite parties filed
revision in which the Deputy Director of
Consolidation by order dated 10.02.2021
admitted the revision and stayed the further
proceedings
before
the
Consolidation
Officer.

5. Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil
submits that the revision against the order