# Ram Tahal Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 609
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-22
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 4512 of 1985
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-tahal-singh-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-sultanpur-ors-49489
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 5(2)(a)(b), 6(1), 9,
9A(2), 11(1) & 48 - Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 - Section 52 (Lis Pendens) -
Cancellation of sale deed - Jurisdiction -
Abatement of civil suit - Petitioner's case
that his father (respondent no.4, later
deceased)
behaved
abnormally,
compelling petitioner to file Injunction
Suit against him. Civil Court granted
interim
injunction
on
14.10.1977
restraining
respondent
no.4
from
executing
sale
deed.
Despite
that
respondent no.4 executed a sale deed on
18.10.1977 in favour of respondents no.5
and 6. Land was also mortgaged with the
Land Development Bank. Petitioner filed
Suit No. for cancellation of sale deed, but
it was abated due to commencement of
consolidation proceedings. Petitioner then
filed objection under Section 9A(2), U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,
1953,
which was rejected. His appeal and
revision
were
also
dismissed
by
consolidation
courts.
Petitioner
filed
present writ petition challenging those
orders. Petitioner contended that the sale
deed executed on 18.10.1977 by his father
(respondent no.4) was in violation of the
interim injunction order dated 14.10.1977,
hence void. Suit for cancellation of sale
deed could not have been abated because
the suit for cancellation of sale deed is a
suit of civil nature which is cognizable by
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Civil
Court
only,
therefore
the
consolidation courts cannot decide it.
Respondents argued that respondent no.4
had
no
knowledge
of
the
interim
injunction at the time of execution, the
Land Development Bank loan was repaid,
the sale deed was validly executed and
proved, and that the writ petition was
misconceived and baseless. Held : If the
civil
suit
was
wrongly
abated,
the
petitioner ought to have challenged the
abatement order before the appropriate
court, but no such challenge was made.
Petitioner accepted the abatement and
filed
objection
before
consolidation
authorities without disclosing any right in
the land or proof of communication of
interim injunction before execution of the
sale deed. Since respondent no.4 was the
only recorded tenure holder at the time of
execution, the petitioner, not being a
recorded tenure holder, had no right or
title to challenge the sale deed before
consolidation courts. Impugned orders of
consolidation
authorities
were
passed
rightly and in accordance with law;
petition
misconceived,
baseless,
and
devoid of merit; accordingly dismissed
(para 21).

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

12 All. Ram Tahal Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur & Ors.
609
is remanded to the learned Board of
Revenue (respondent no.6) to decide the
Second
Appeal
afresh,
strictly
in
accordance with law.

47. It is provided that the Board of
Revenue (respondent no.6), if finds that
any substantial question(s) of law arises in
the case, shall frame such question(s) and
then decide the appeal accordingly and in
case it finds no substantial question of law
is involved in the matter, then it shall
record the reasons in support of its
conclusion.

48. However, it is made clear that this
Court is not expressing any opinion on the
disputed factual matrix involved in the
case, but formed an opinion to remand the
case only due to the aforementioned legal
infirmity noticed and the manner in which
the aforesaid Second Appeal has been
decided.
The
Board
of
Revenue
(respondent no.6), therefore, should decide
the said Second Appeal on its own merits,
strictly in accordance with law.

49. The learned Board of Revenue
(respondent no.6) shall decide the said
Second Appeal expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six month as provided
under Clause 458 of the U.P. Revenue
Court Manual.

50. Accordingly, The writ petition is
allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 609
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Writ-B No. 4512 of 1985

Ram Tahal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashok Pandey, Mohammad Aslam Khan,
Onkar Pandey, Raghaw Ram Upadhyay,
Ram Lagan Misra, Rama Raman Misra, S M
Nasir, Umesh Chandra Pandey, Vishnu Dev
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 5(2)(a)(b), 6(1), 9,
9A(2), 11(1) & 48 - Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 - Section 52 (Lis Pendens) -
Cancellation of sale deed - Jurisdiction -
Abatement of civil suit - Petitioner's case
that his father (respondent no.4, later
deceased)
behaved
abnormally,
compelling petitioner to file Injunction
Suit against him. Civil Court granted
interim
injunction
on
14.10.1977
restraining
respondent
no.4
from
executing
sale
deed.
Despite
that
respondent no.4 executed a sale deed on
18.10.1977 in favour of respondents no.5
and 6. Land was also mortgaged with the
Land Development Bank. Petitioner filed
Suit No. for cancellation of sale deed, but
it was abated due to commencement of
consolidation proceedings. Petitioner then
filed objection under Section 9A(2), U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,
1953,
which was rejected. His appeal and
revision
were
also
dismissed
by
consolidation
courts.
Petitioner
filed
present writ petition challenging those
orders. Petitioner contended that the sale
deed executed on 18.10.1977 by his father
(respondent no.4) was in violation of the
interim injunction order dated 14.10.1977,
hence void. Suit for cancellation of sale
deed could not have been abated because
the suit for cancellation of sale deed is a
suit of civil nature which is cognizable by
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Civil
Court
only,
therefore
the
consolidation courts cannot decide it.
Respondents argued that respondent no.4
had
no
knowledge
of
the
interim
injunction at the time of execution, the
Land Development Bank loan was repaid,
the sale deed was validly executed and
proved, and that the writ petition was
misconceived and baseless. Held : If the
civil
suit
was
wrongly
abated,
the
petitioner ought to have challenged the
abatement order before the appropriate
court, but no such challenge was made.
Petitioner accepted the abatement and
filed
objection
before
consolidation
authorities without disclosing any right in
the land or proof of communication of
interim injunction before execution of the
sale deed. Since respondent no.4 was the
only recorded tenure holder at the time of
execution, the petitioner, not being a
recorded tenure holder, had no right or
title to challenge the sale deed before
consolidation courts. Impugned orders of
consolidation
authorities
were
passed
rightly and in accordance with law;
petition
misconceived,
baseless,
and
devoid of merit; accordingly dismissed
(para 21).

Dismissed. (E-5)

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

1. Heard, Shri Mohd. Arif Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Akbar Ali Khan, Advocate holding brief of
Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu
Dev
Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
respondents no.5 and 6. Learned Standing
Counsel is present for respondents no.1 to
3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that on account of abnormal
conduct of his father i.e. respondent no.4
(now deceased), the petitioner was forced
to enter into legal battle with him and file
Injunction Suit No.191 of 1977; Ram Tahal
Versus Ram Ajore and others, in which the
interim
injunction
was
granted
on
14.10.1977 restraining the respondent no.4
from executing the sale deed. But inspite of
the interim injunction granted by the Civil
Court, the respondent no.4 executed the
sale deed in favour of respondents no.5 and
6 on 18.10.1977, whereas the land in
dispute was mortgaged in favour of the
Land Development Bank. The petitioner
filed another Suit No.50 of 1981 for
cancellation of sale deed and during
pendency of the Suit, the consolidation
proceedings started, therefore, the Suit was
abated. The petitioner filed objection under
Section 9A-2 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred
as the Act 1953), which was rejected.
Therefore the petitioner had filed an appeal
and thereafter revision which have also
been dismissed without considering the
grounds raised by the petitioner, therefore
the petitioner has filed this petition,
challenging the said orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that sale deed was executed in
violation of the injunction order dated
14.10.1977, therefore it was a void
document and the Suit for cancellation of
sale deed could not have been abated
because the suit for cancellation of sale
deed is a suit of civil nature which is
cognizable by the Civil Court only,
therefore the consolidation courts cannot
decide it. He relied on Section 5 of the Act
1953 and Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1982 in these regards. Thus
the submission is that the impugned orders
are not sustainable in the eyes of law and
are liable to be quashed by this court. He
placed reliance on Ram Padarath and
others Versus Second Additional District
Judge, Sultanpur and others; 1989 AWC
12 All. Ram Tahal Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur & Ors.
611
(FB)(LB) 290 And Ram Asrey Singh and
others Versus State of U.P. and others;
2006(1) ALJ 533.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents no.5 and 6 submitted that the
respondent no.4 had no knowledge of the
order of interim injunction at the time of
execution of sale deed, therefore it cannot
be said that the sale deed was executed in
violation of the interim injunction order. He
further submitted that loan amount of Land
Development Bank has been paid, therefore
there was no objection from the Land
Development
Bank.
Accordingly
the
impugned orders have rightly been passed
in accordance with law. The petition has
been filed on misconceived and baseless
grounds, which is liable to be dismissed
with costs.

5. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned orders, which have
only been placed on records of this case.

6. The respondent no.4 had died
during pendency of the present writ
petition, therefore his name was deleted in
pursuance of the order dated 05.01.2006
passed by this court.

7. As borne out from the pleadings
and impugned orders placed on record, the
petitioner had filed Regular Suit No.191 of
1977; Ram Tahal Singh Versus Ram Ajore
and others for permanent injunction, in
which an interim injunction was granted on
14.10.1977 restraining the respondent no.4
from executing the sale deed of the land in
question. However the sale deed was
executed by the respondent no.4 in favour
of respondents no.5 and 6. on 18.10.1977.
Thereafter the petitioner filed another suit
no.50 of 1981 for cancellation of sale deed
as argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner and disclosed in one of the
impugned orders, whereas as per other
impugned order it was the appeal filed by
the petitioner and the Suit was amended
impleading the opposite parties No.5 and 6
challenging the sale deed executed by the
respondent no.4 on 18.10.1977. Be that as
it may, it was abated on 16.01.1980 on
account of the start of the consolidation
proceedings.

8. The petitioner filed objection under
Section 9 of the Act 1953. Three issues
were framed by the Consolidation Officer.
The first of which was as to whether
according to Ram Tahal, Ram Ajore Singh
is Sankramaniya Bhumidhar of Khata
No.111. The second issue was how much
area would be registered in accordance
with the report of Assistant Consolidation
Officer and the third as to how the Khata
would be divided.

9. After adducing the evidence by the
parties the Consolidation Officer decided
the objection by means of the order dated
11.05.1981. The issue no.1 was decided
against the petitioner with the finding that
the sale deed executed on 18th of October
1977 has been proved by the respondents
no.5 and 6 with the evidence of his brother
and Mukhtar Khas Ram Narayan, who had
stated that Ram Ajore Singh had executed
the sale deed for a consideration of
Rs.20,000/- and he was fit and in good
mental condition at the time of execution of
sale deed. He had also stated that he was
also present at the time of sale deed with
Ram Ajore, who had put his signatures on
the sale deed and the attesting witnesses
Kedar Nath had put his thumb impression
and Braj Karan Singh had signed. He has
further stated that after execution of the
sale deed, the land in question is in
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession of Raj Bahadur and Ram Dulare
and their names are also recorded and Ram
Ajore, Ram Harakh and Shiv Bahadur have
no concern with the same.

10. The attesting witness Braj Karan
Singh was also produced, who stated that
he knows Raj Bahadur and Ram Dularey in
favour of whom Ram Ajore Singh had
executed sale deed, on which he had put his
signatures,
which
is
Ext.Ka-1.
The
mutation has also been made on the Nakal
Khatauni of 1383-1388 Fasali, from which
it is apparent that no objection was raised
by Ram Ajore Singh. It has not been stated
that Ram Ajore Singh was mad or of
unsound mind. Ram Tahal has also not
made any objection regarding his title. The
Land Development Bank has not made any
objection. The issue no.2 and 3 have been
decided accordingly. The petitioner has not
assailed the aforesaid findings recorded by
the Consolidation Officer. According to the
order of the Consolidation Officer Khata
No.111 was recorded in the basic year in
the name of Ram Bahadur and Ram
Dularey son of Ram Pher and their share is
one half each.

11. The aforesaid order dated
11.05.1981
was
challenged
by
the
petitioner in appeal filed under Section
11(1) of the Act 1953, which has been
dismissed on the ground that the land in
dispute was recorded in the name of the
father of the appellant Ram Ajore before
execution of sale deed on 18.10.1977. He
had executed the sale deed to Ram Babadur
and another. The sale deed is registered and
has been proved by the attesting witness
Braj Karan Singh and one another therefore
the
registered
sale
deed
cannot
be
disbelieved merely on saying of the
appellant that by deceiving the father of the
appellant the sale deed has been got
executed. The petitioner also failed to
prove his title or share alongwith his father
Ram Ajore in the land in dispute, therefore
before the execution of the sale deed the
father of the petitioner was the only
recorded tenure holder of the land in
dispute. The appeal was dismissed by
means of the judgment and order dated
22.04.1982.

12. The petitioner preferred revision
No.643/425 under Section 48 of the Act
1953. The revision has also been dismissed
by means of order dated 07.05.1983 on the
ground that no proof has been filed on
record to show that the injunction order
dated 14.10.1977 was communicated to
Ram Ajore prior to execution of sale deed.
The petitioner has also not made any
objection under Section 9 of the Act 1953
before this Court that his father is of
unsound mind. It has further been recorded
that the petitioner has not filed any
objection under Section 9 of the Act 1953
that the petitioner has also got the land in
dispute being son of his father, whereas he
has made only objection that respondent
no.4 Ram Ajore had no right to execute the
sale deed, in view of the interim injunction
order, service of which, prior to execution
of sale deed is not proved. Since the land in
dispute was recorded in the name of Ram
Ajore, therefore he had right to execute the
sale deed and if it was got executed by
forgery then only he had right to challenge
the same. The Suit for cancellation of sale
deed is also abated from the court of
Munsif and now the petitioner cannot
allege that the sale deed was got executed
by forgery and his mind was not in good
condition. If the petitioner would have
made any objection claiming his right over
the land in dispute, it could have been
considered, but no such objection has been
made under Section 9 of the Act 1953,
12 All. Ram Tahal Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur & Ors.
613
therefore the sale deed cannot be treated to
be wrong merely on the basis of the stay
order by the Munsif Magistrate, service of
which
on
respondent
no.4
prior
to
execution of the sale deed also could not be
proved. The sale deed has also been proved
by the attesting witness. Therefore he is in
agreement with the findings recorded by
the lower courts.

13. Section 5 of the Act 1953
provides the effect of notification under
Section 4(2). Sub-section (2)(a) provides
that every proceeding for correction of
records and every suit and proceeding in
respect of declaration of rights or interest in
any land laying in the area, or for
declaration or adjudication of any other
right in regard to which proceedings can or
ought to be taken under this Act, pending
before any Court or authority whether of
the first instance or of appeal, reference or
revision, shall, on an order being passed in
that behalf by the Court or authority before
whom such suit or proceeding is pending,
stand abated. The first proviso of this
section provides that no such order shall be
passed without giving notice by post or in
any other manner and after giving them an
opportunity of being heard. The second
proviso provides that on the issue of a
notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 6 in respect of the said area or part
thereof, every such order in relation to the
land lying in such area or part as the case
may be, shall stand vacated.

14. Section 52 of the Transfer of
property Act 1882 provides that during the
pendency of any suit or proceeding, which
is not collusive and in which any right to
immovable
property
is
directly
and
specifically in question, the property cannot
be transferred or otherwise dealt with by
any party to the suit or proceeding so as to
affect the rights of any other party thereto
under any decree or order which may be
made therein, except under the authority of
the Court and on such terms as it may
impose.

15. In view of the aforesaid two
provisions made under the Act 1953 and
the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the
reliance on which has been placed by
learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit
for correction of records and declaration of
rights or interest in any land lying in the
area, or for declaration or adjudication of
any other right in regard to which
proceedings can be taken under this Act,
pending before any Court or authority
whether of the first instance or of appeal,
reference or revision shall stand abated, but
no such order can be passed without giving
them an opportunity of being heard. On the
issue of a notification under sub-section (1)
of Section 6 in respect of the said area or
part thereof, every such order shall stand
vacated. Thus if the suit was wrongly
abated by the Civil Court, the petitioner
could have challenged the said order before
the appropriate court, but nothing has been
brought on record to show that the said
order was challenged by the petitioner in
any court of law, by which it has been
rescinded or modified.

16. Sub-section (b) of sub-section (2)
of Section 5 provides that such abatement
shall be without prejudice to the rights of
the persons affected to agitate the right or
interest in dispute in the said suits or
proceedings
before
the
appropriate
consolidation authorities under and in
accordance with the provisions of this Act
and the rules made thereunder. The
petitioner instead of challenging the order
of abatement passed by the Civil Court has
chosen to agitate before the consolidation
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority by filing an objection under
Section 9A-2 of the Act 1953, but without
disclosing any right in the land in dispute
under
and
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of this Act and the Rules made
thereunder as held by the revisional court.
Therefore the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner in this regard is
misconceived and not tenable.

17. So far as the reliance placed by
learned counsel for the petitioner on
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
1882 is concerned, the same also could
have been considered by the Civil Court
and the petitioner before the consolidation
authorities also failed to disclose that the
interim injunction passed by the civil court
and pendency of suit was communicated to
the respondent no.4, 5 and 6 before
execution of sale deed. Since the petitioner
accepted the order of abatement and filed
an objection before the consolidation
authorities, therefore the same has been
dealt with in accordance with the Act and
the Rules in accordance with law.

18. A Full Bench of this court, in the
case of Ram Padarath and others Versus
Second
Additional
District
Judge,
Sultanpur and others (Supra), has held
that a recorded tenure holder having prima
facie title in his favour can hardly be
directed to approach the revenue court in
respect of seeking relief for cancellation of
a 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. Relevant paragraph 41 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"41. We are of the view that the
case of Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982 (8)
ALR 517 has been correctly decided and the
said decision requires no consideration, while
the Division Bench case, Dr. Ayodhya
Prasad v. Gangotri, 1981 AWC 469 is
regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation
authorities, but so far as it bolds that suit in
respect of void document will lie in the
revenue court it does not lay down a good
law. Suit or action for cancellation of void
document will generally lie in the civil court
and a party cannot be deprived of his right
getting this relief permissible under law
except when a declaration of right or status of
a tenure-holder is necessarily needed in
which event relief for cancellation will be
surplusage and redundant. A recorded tenureholder having prima facie title in his favour
can hardly be directed to approach the
revenue court in respect of seeking relief for
cancellation of a 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."

19. This Court, in the case of Ram
Asrey Singh and others Versus State of
U.P. and others (Supra), while relying on
several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the aforesaid Full Bench
judgment of this court in the case of Ram
Padarath and others Versus Second
Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and
other has held that from the aforesaid
judgments it is clear that the Apex Court has
clearly held that in such types of cases
where the rights or title are not involved and
the question involved is cancellation of
deed, it is the civil court only which has
jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and
cancel the said document. In the said case
the challenge of the sale deed was made on
the ground that it was executed by
impersonation, whereas the defendant no.2
(respondent 3) in the petition had half share
in
the
land
in
dispute.
12 All. Amandeep Singh Vs. S.B.I. & Ors.
615

20. In view of above and the aforesaid
Full Bench decision of this court, the
recorded tenure holder having prima facie
title in his favour can hardly be directed to
approach the revenue court in respect of
seeking relief for cancellation of a 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, but in
the present case the petitioner was not a
recorded tenure holder and admittedly the
respondent no.4 was the recorded tenure
holder at the time of execution of sale deed.
He has also not challenged the order of
abatement passed by the civil court, which
he could have challenged in appropriate
proceedings. The petitioner before the
consolidation courts also failed to claim or
show any right or title over the land in
dispute. Nothing has also been brought on
record to show that the relief, which should
have been claimed before the revenue court
was claimed by the petitioner before the
civil court. Therefore he is not entitled for
any benefit of the said decision and also the
other case relied by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Thus this court is of the view
that the impugned orders have rightly and
in accordance with law been passed by the
Consolidation authorities, which does not
call for any interference by this court. The
petition has been filed on misconceived and
baseless ground and it lacks any merit.

21. The petition is, accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs..
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 615
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Writ-C No. 2461 of 2023

Amandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
S.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kuldeep Kaur, Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi,
Ravi Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 -
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 188 r/w
Section 30 of the Arms Act-a young
advocate
carried
arms
in
the
court
premises-the
arms
license
of
the
petitioner was cancelled by the Licensing
Authority-Carrying of the arms in the
Court premises by litigants is on the
increase and is a cause for major threat to
public peace and public safety coupled
with the fact that the mandate of Rule
614-A of the General Rules (Civil) places
restrictions on carrying of arms in the
Court premises and despite directions by
this Court in PIL No. 2436 of 2019 the
same are not being followed in letter and
spirit-directions issued.(Para 1 to 47)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ram Vilas Vs St. of U.P & ors. (2023) AHC:
139246

2. Pradyuman Bisht Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2023)
LiveLaw SC 628

3. Kailash Nath & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(1985) AIR All 291

4. Rana Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1995) SCC
OnLine All 979

5. Sardar Govindrao Vs St. of M.P.(1964) SCC
OnLine SC 93

6. Official Liquidator Vs Dharti Dhan (P)
Ltd.(1977) 2 SCC 166