# Salik Ram & Ors v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 511
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 1190 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/salik-ram-ors-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-sravasti-ors-51233
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Abatement of proceedings
-
Sections 5 & 9-A - Once consolidation
operation starts on the publication of
notification u/s 4, then any right, interest,
and title in respect of any land which is
the subject matter of such consolidation
operations is to be determined by the
Consolidation Authorities and none else.
Once the consolidation proceedings had
commenced,
the
consolidation
proceedings could not have abated to
await
the
outcome
of
the
civil
proceedings; rather, it would be the civil
proceedings which would abate in the
light of commencement of proceedings
under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,

## Text

12 All. Salik Ram & Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti & Ors.
511
clearly an abuse of the process of law and
deserve to be quashed.

121.
We may
clarify
that
any
observation made in this judgment will not
influence the ongoing inter-se proceedings
between the parties before the Arbitrator or
pending before this Court. All contentions
of the parties in respect of the issues
pending before the competent forums are
also left open for its adjudication in
accordance with law.

122. For the reasons recorded above,
the writ petitions succeed and are allowed.
The FIRs in Case Crime No. 427 of 2023,
dated 9.4.2023, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad as
also in Case Crime No. 197 of 2023, dated
15.4.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Beta-2,
District Greater NOIDA as well as the
proceedings initiated by ED pursuant
thereto registered as ECIR/HIU-I/06/2023
are quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 511
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ- B No. 1190 of 2024
And
Writ B No. 1192 of 2024

Salik Ram & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Abatement of proceedings
-
Sections 5 & 9-A - Once consolidation
operation starts on the publication of
notification u/s 4, then any right, interest,
and title in respect of any land which is
the subject matter of such consolidation
operations is to be determined by the
Consolidation Authorities and none else.
Once the consolidation proceedings had
commenced,
the
consolidation
proceedings could not have abated to
await
the
outcome
of
the
civil
proceedings; rather, it would be the civil
proceedings which would abate in the
light of commencement of proceedings
under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953. Consolidation courts do not have
the right to cancel an instrument, but at
the same time, once a title lis is before the
Consolidation Authority, it is legally bound
to consider the impact and give its finding
thereon and determine whether the deed
or instrument was a void or voidable
document. (Para 18)

B. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - In the instant case, before the
Consolidation
Officer,
three
sets
of
objections
were
filed:
(i)
by
the
petitioners, who claimed rights on the
basis of the sale deed dated 29.10.1986;
(ii) by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who
claimed rights on the basis of the
agreement to sale dated 30.04.1970 and
sale deed dated 17.01.1997; and (iii) by
Ram Sudhi, who acknowledged the sale
deed executed dated 17.01.1997 but
disputed the sale deed dated 29.10.1986.
- Consolidation Officer allowed objections
of private respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - SOC
found favour with the sale deed of the
petitioners
dated
29.10.1986
and
accordingly allowed the appeal. DDC,
considering that the suit for cancellation
of the sale deed was still pending, held
that the parties were required to get their
rights adjudicated in the civil court, hence,
it abated the proceedings. Held: Once a
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
title
lis
is
before
the
Consolidation
Authority, it is legally bound to consider
the impact and give its finding thereon
and determine whether the deed or
instrument
was
a
void
or
voidable
document.
Either
way,
it
is
not
appropriate or open for the DDC to have
abated the proceedings. (Para 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Nath Vs Munna 1976 RD 220

2. Dharma Devi Vs DDC 1976 SCC OnLine All
259

3. Madhuri Devi & ors. Vs DDC Sitapur Campt
2017 SCC OnLine All 6407

4. Khursheed & anr. Vs Shaqoor 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2929

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. This order will decide the instant
petition as well the connected Petition
No.1192 Writ-B of 2024. However, for the
sake of convenience the facts are being
noticed from Writ-B No.1190 of 2024.

2. In both the writ petitions, the order
passed by the DDC dated 27.08.2024 is
under challenge.

3. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has
been accepted by Dr. Krishna Singh and
Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the
State- respondents. Shri Vikram Pandey,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj
Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice
on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, who is
impleaded as respondent No.6 in connected
petition and Shri Rakesh Srivastava,
Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf
of contesting respondent Nos.3 to 5, which
is taken on record.

4. At this stage, it will be relevant to
mention that the present respondent Nos.3
to 5, namely, Dileep Kumar, Ashok Kumar
and Smt. Dulara Devi are the petitioners in
the connected Petition No.1192 Writ-B of
2024, wherein Salik Ram, Ram Sagar and
Ram Chandra are respondents (these three
persons are the petitioners in the instant
petition No.1190 Writ-B of 2024).

5. Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B
No.1190 of 2024 has filed his Vakalatnama
on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the
connected Writ-B No.1192 of 2024, which
is also taken on record.

6. Since, the controversy involved in
the instant petitions is common between the
parties and both are aggrieved by the same
order, hence with the consent of learned
counsel for the respective parties in both
the petitions, the petitions are being
disposed of finally at the admission stage
without calling any counter affidavit as the
facts are not in dispute and learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties in both
the
petitions
agreed
that
the
order
impugned is not sustainable in law.

7. In order to put the controversy in a
perspective, the record indicates that the
property in question initially belonged to
one Ram Sudhi. The dispute relates to plots
Nos.453 and 454 situated in Village-
Khargaura Basti, Pargana & Tehsil- Ikauna,
District- Shravasti. The petitioners of WritB No.1190 of 2024 claim rights to the
property of Ram Sudhi on the basis of a
sale deed dated 29.10.1986, whereas the
private respondents in the said petition
(who are the petitioners in the connected
12 All. Salik Ram & Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti & Ors.
513
petition) claim rights from Ram Sudhi
based on an agreement to sale dated 30th
April, 1976.

8. The dispute arose on account of fact
that the petitioners claiming title on the
basis of the sale deed dated 29.10.1986. It
was executed by Ram Sudhi in favour of
Shri Bagawati and Smt. Badka (parents of
the petitioners). It is also stated that on the
strength of the said sale deed, the names of
the parents of the petitioners was duly
mutated in the revenue records on 30th
June, 1987.

9. Contemporaneously, the record
reveals that since the private respondents,
who are successor-in-interest of Parashu
Ram, who claim that Ram Sudhi had
executed an agreement to sale dated 30th
April, 1976 in respect of the property in
dispute,
but
did
not
honour
his
commitment, which led Parashu Ram to
institute a suit bearing No.272 of 1990. The
said suit came to be decreed ex parte on
29.01.1996. However, before the said
decree could be put into execution, Ram
Sudhi executed the sale deed dated
17.01.1997 in favour of Parashu Ram. The
impact was that in respect of the property
in question two sale deeds were set up, one
by the predecessor-in-interest of the present
petitioners and other by the predecessor-ininterest of private respondent Nos.3 to 5.

10. In the meantime, once the
petitioners became aware of the sale deed
dated 17.01.1997 executed in pursuance of
the ex parte decree dated 29.01.1996,
hence, an application under Order 9 Rule
13 of the CPC came to be filed seeking to
recall the ex parte judgement and decree
dated 29.01.1996. The said application
came to be allowed on 07.10.1998 and it
has been informed that this order was put to
challenge before the revisional court as
well as before this Court, but it do not find
favour and the said order remained intact.

11. Another set of litigation was
initiated by Ram Sudhi, who filed a suit
seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated
29.10.1986 before the competent civil
court, which was registered as R.S. No.191
of 1990. Shri Triapthi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Writ-B
No.1190 of 2024 submits that insofar as the
pendency of this suit for cancellation, i.e.,
R.S. No.191 of 1990 is concerned, the
petitioners are not aware of the same nor
they are aware of the stage of the said suit
as they have not been served.

12. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the
proceedings
before
the
Consolidation
Officer came to be contested and three sets
of objections were filed before the
Consolidation Officer; (i) by the present
petitioners, who claimed rights on the basis
of the sale deed dated 29.10.1986; (ii)
another set of objections filed by private
respondent Nos.3 to 5 (herein) who claimed
rights on the basis of the agreement to sale
dated 30.04.1970 and sale deed dated
17.01.1997; and (iii) by Ram Sudhi
himself, who stated and acknowledged the
sale deed executed in favour of Parashu
Ram dated 17.01.1997 but disputed the sale
deed dated 29.08.1986.

13. The record further reveals that
before
the
Consolidation
Officer
a
compromise
was
arrived
at
between
Parashu
Ram
and
Ram
Sudhi
on
22.05.2003, which has been brought on
record as Annexure No.14 in the connected
Petition
No.1192
Writ-B
of
2024.
However, the Consolidation Officer, after
hearing the parties and considering three
issues which had been framed, came to the
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusion that the objections filed by the
present petitioners as well as the objections
of Ram Sudhi were rejected and the
objections of private respondent Nos.3 to 5
came to be allowed.

14. This order dated 16.10.2003 came
to be challenged by the petitioners before
the SOC. In light of the submissions made
before the SOC, it found that insofar as the
sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioners dated 29.10.1986 is concerned,
the same has not yet been cancelled or set
aside by any competent court of law. It also
noticed that the ex parte decree dated
29.01.1996 passed in favour of Parashu
Ram in regular suit No.272 of 1990 had
been set aside on an application under
Order 9 Rule 13 moved by the present
petitioners vide order dated 17.10.1998. As
a consequence, the sale deed executed by
Ram Sudhi in favour of Parashu Ram
would also not confer any right and to that
extent it found favour with the sale deed of
the
petitioners
dated
29.10.1986,
accordingly, it allowed the appeal of the
petitioners vide judgement and order dated
10.07.2008.

15. The order passed by the SOC was
assailed by private respondent Nos.3 to 5
by filing a revision before the DDC and the
DDC vide its judgement dated 27.08.2024
taking note of the sequence of the litigation
in
between
the
parties
including
considering that the suit for cancellation of
the sale deed is still pending and held that
the parties were required to get their rights
adjudicated in the civil court, hence, it
abated the proceedings vide order dated
27.08.2024.

16. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of
facts that the present petitioners assail the
order passed by the DDC. The private
respondents also assail the same order
dated 27.08.2024, though for different
reasons. Learned counsel for the parties are
not at variance to the basic proposition that
once the consolidation proceedings had
commenced, the consolidation proceedings
could not have abated to await the outcome
of the civil proceedings rather it would
have been the civil proceedings, which
would abate in the light of commencement
of proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953.

17. It is in this context that both the
parties have come up before this Court in
their respective petitions. As per the
petitioners, the abatement would have
deleterious effect on the rights of the
petitioners, whereas a similar contention
has been made by learned counsel for the
private respondents that by the same order
of abatement, it would also have an
unfavorable impact on the rights of private
respondent Nos.3 to 5, which stood
crystallized in the light of the sale deed,
which was executed by Ram Sudhi dated
17.01.1997. It is thus urged that it was open
for the DDC to have heard the parties on
merits and would have decided the issue/lis
either way, but it was not open for the DDC
to have abated the proceedings leaving it
open for the parties to get their rights
adjudicated in the civil court.

18. After hearing the parties, this
Court
finds
that
there
are
several
contentious issues in between the parties.
The impact of the sale deed executed by
Ram Sudhi in favour of Parashu Ram in
furtherance of ex parte decree dated
29.01.1996 viz-a-viz the sale deed dated
29.10.1986 allegedly executed by Ram
Sudhi in favour of Bhagwati and Smt.
Badka (the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners). The date of commencement of
12 All. Salik Ram & Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti & Ors.
515
consolidation operations and the fact
whether any subsequent notification under
Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 has been made or not is
also an important issue, which ought to
have been taken note of before considering
the rights of the respective parties and
when and which proceedings will abate. It
may be true that the consolidation courts do
not have the right to cancel an instrument
but at the same time once a title 'lis' is
before the Consolidation Authority, it is
legally bound to consider the impact and
give its finding thereon and determine
whether the deed or instrument was a void
or voidable document. Either way it is not
appropriate or open for the DDC to have
abated the proceedings as that is per se a
jurisdictional
error,
which
mars
the
judgement dated 27.08.2024.

19. This aspect of the matter was
considered by a Full Bench of this Court in
Ram Nath Vs. Munna 1976 RD 220,
wherein it was observed as under:-

"The Full Bench observed that
the documents which are voidable can be
cancelled by the civil court only and the
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to ignore those documents,
instead they are under a duty to give effect
to these documents till they are cancelled
by a competent court of law. If a sale deed
or document of transfer is void the
consolidation authorities have jurisdiction
to disregard the same while determining
title to the land but if the document is
voidable then the consolidation authorities
have no jurisdiction to disregard sale deed
in that even the civil court is the only
proper forum to adjudicate upon the
validity
of
the
sale
deed
and
the
consolidation authorities are bound to give
effect to the sale-deed."

20. This was also noticed by this Court
in Dharma Devi Vs. DDC 1976 SCC
OnLine All 259, wherein the Full Bench
decision in the case of Ram Nath (supra)
was followed and in para 8 and 9, it held as
under:-

"8. In Ram Nath v. Munna, a Full
Bench of this Court considered the effect of
the Judgment of the Supreme Court. The
Full Bench observed that the documents
which are voidable can be cancelled by the
civil court only and the consolidation
authorities have no jurisdiction to ignore
those documents, instead they are under a
duty to give effect to these documents till
they are cancelled by a competent court of
law. The effect of the Full Bench judgment
is that if a sale deed or document of
transfer
is
void
the
consolidation
authorities have jurisdiction to disregard
the same while determining title to the land
but if the document is voidable then the
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to disregard sale deed in that
event the civil court is the only proper
forum to adjudicate upon the validity of the
sale deed and the consolidation authorities
are bound to give effect to the sale-deed. In
Second Appeal No. 1909 of 1972 decided
on 4th September, 1974, G.C. Mathur, J.
expressed similar view. In Writ Petition No.
6035 of 1972 (Bind Basi V.D. D.C.
Azamgarh), decided on 11th October,
1973, Ojha, J. also expressed a similar
view.

9. It is necessary to keep in mind
that the respondent Tribhuwan Nath
himself raised objection to the jurisdiction
of the civil court and his objection was
upheld as a result of which Smt. Dharam
Devi challenged the sale deed before the
consolidation authorities. Admittedly, both
the parties produced oral and documentary
evidence
before
the
consolidation
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities in support of their case. The
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
recorded finding that the sale deed was
vold for want of consideration. In revision
the Deputy of Consolidation did not
consider of record any finding on that
question, He did not consider the evidence
produced by the parties, nor he recorded
any finding as to whether the sale deed was
vold or voidable. He set aside the order of
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on
the
ground
that
the
consolidation
authorities had no jurisdiction to disregard
the sale dead. As already discussed the
consolidation authorities have jurisdiction
to disregard a vold sale deed but if the sale
deed is voidable they have no jurisdiction
to ignore the same. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation failed to appreciate this
aspect of the question. The Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
had
already
recorded a finding that the sale deed was
vold for want of consideration. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation should have
considered that finding on merits on
appreciation of evidence. Since he failed to
do that, his order is liable to be quashed."

21. This issue was once again
considered by this Court in Madhuri Devi
and others Vs. DDC Sitapur Campt 2017
SCC OnLine All 6407 and in para 13 to 15,
it held as under:-

"13. Once Section 4 notification
is published under the Act, 1953 then its
consequences ensue as prescribed under
Section 5 thereof and all rights and every
proceeding for the correction of records
and every suit and proceedings in respect
of 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 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.

14. A joint reading of Sub-section
2 of Section 5 and Section 9-A leave no
doubt that once consolidation operation
starts on the publication of notification
under Section 4, then, any right, interest
and title in respect of any land which is the
subject matter of such consolidation
operations, is to be determined by the
Consolidation Authorities and none else,
however, as far as cancellation of deeds
are concerned it is the prerogative of the
Civil Courts and Consolidation Authorities
do not have any jurisdiction to cancel
instruments i.e. sale deed or gift deed etc.,
but, this does not mean that in proceedings
under Section 9-A (2) the Consolidation
Courts can not take into consideration such
sale deeds etc. for the purposes of
determination of rights, title and interest of
the parties in the land in question. This
question fell for consideration before the
Supreme Court way back in 1970 itself in
the case of Gorakh Nath Dube's case
(supra), wherein the Supreme Court took
note of a Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in Jagarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram
Pande, 1969 ALJ 768, wherein, the
question whether a suit for cancellation of
a sale deed, which was pending on the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Act
abates under Section 5(2) of the Act. The
jurisdiction
of
the
Consolidation
Authorities to go into questions relating to
the validity of the sale deeds, gift deeds and
wills also fell for consideration. The
Supreme Court after noticing the aforesaid
judgment
found
therein
a
fairly
comprehensive discussion of the relevant
authorities of the Allahabad High Court,
the preponderating weight of which was
12 All. Salik Ram & Ors. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sravasti & Ors.
517
cast in favour of view that question relating
to the validity of sale deeds, gift deeds and
wills could be gone into in proceedings
before
the
Consolidation
authorities
because such questions naturally and
necessarily arose and had to be decided in
the course of adjudication on rights or
interests in land which are the subject
matter of consolidation proceedings. The
Supreme Court opined that a distinction
can be made between cases where a
document is wholly and partially invalid so
that it can be disregarded by any Court or
authority and one where it has to be
actually set-aside before it can cease to
have legal effect. It held that an alienation
made in excess of power to transfer would
be, to the extent of excess of power, invalid.
It further held that an adjudication on the
effect of such purported alienation would
be necessarily implied in the decision of a
dispute involving conflicting claims to the
rights or interests in land which are the
subject
matter
of
consolidation
proceedings. The existence and quantum of
rights claimed or denied will have to be
declared by the consolidation authorities
which would be deemed to be invested with
jurisdiction by the necessary implication of
their statutory powers to adjudicate upon
such rights and interest in land, to declare
such documents effective or ineffective, but,
where there is a document the legal affect
of which can only be taken away by setting
it aside or its cancellation, it could be
urged that the consolidation authorities
have no power to cancel the deed, and,
therefore, it opined that it must be held to
be binding on them so long as it is not
cancelled by a Court having the power to
cancel it.

15. In view of what was held by
the Supreme Court the legal position which
can be culled out is that the validity of sale
deed can also be looked into by the
Consolidation Authorities, although, they
do not have the jurisdiction to cancel it.
They can very well see as to whether the
deed in question on the basis of which any
right, title or interest is claimed is a void
document, if so, then they can very well
ignore it by declaring it to be ineffective,
however, if the legality being pointed out in
respect of the document is such that it
would at best be voidable at the instance of
the aggrieved party, then, in such an event
the Consolidation Courts are bound to give
effect to such documents, unless and until it
is cancelled by a Court of competent Civil
jurisdiction, meaning thereby, voidable
documents can not be ignored by the
Consolidation Courts. This is the crux of
the legal position with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Consolidation Courts in
this regard."

22. Lately, the Apex Court in
Khursheed and another Vs. Shaqoor 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2929 in paras 9 to 11 held
as under:-

"9. Invoking the extra-ordinary
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the respondent challenged the order dated
22.11.2018 of the Additional District
Judge, Laksar by filing a Writ Petition
before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court, by
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
02.08.2019 allowed the Writ Petition filed
by the Respondent & set aside the order
dated 22.11.2018 of the Additional District
Jugde, Laksar and consequently ordered
that the Civil Suit filed by the Respodent be
restored to the file of the Civil Judge
(Junior
Division),
Laksar,
DistrictHaridwar. The learned Single Judge, after
placing his reliance upon a judgment of
this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Narain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535, came to
the conclusion that as the allegation is that
the sale deed was executed by playing
fraud and by impersonation, it would be a
"voidable" document and thus, any suit,
for cancellation of a voidable sale deed will
not abate by virtue of Section 5(2)(a) of the
Consolidation Act. The distinction between
'void' and 'voidable' documents was made
by this Court in the case of Ningawwa v.
Byrappa, (1968) 2 SCR 797 and this is
what was held:

4............................ It is well
established that a contract or other
transaction induced or tainted by fraud is
not void, but only voidable at the option of
the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the
transaction is valid, so that third parties
without notice of the fraud may in the
meantime acquire rights and interests in
the matter which they may enforce against
the party defrauded. "The fact that the
contract has been induced by fraud does
not make the contract void or prevent the
property from passing, but merely gives the
party defrauded a right on discovering the
fraud to elect whether he shall continue to
treat the contract as binding or disaffirm
the contract and resume the property. If it
can be shown that 'the party defrauded'
has at any time after knowledge of the
fraud either by express words or by
unequivocal acts affirmed the contract,
'his' election is determined for ever. The
party defrauded may keep the question
open so long as he does nothing to affirm
the contact." (Clough v. L. & N.W. Ry.)
[[L.R.] 7 Exch. 26, 34].

5. The legal position will be
different
if
there
is
a
fraudulent
misrepresentation not merely as to the
contents of the document but as to its
character. The authorities make a clear
distinction
between
fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the character of the
document and fraudulent misrepresentation
as to the contents thereof. With reference to
the former, it has been held that the
transaction is void, while in the case of the
latter, it is merely voidable. (emphasis
supplied)

10. This Court, in Dularia Devi v.
Janardan Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 216 : AIR
1990 SC 1173 relying upon the law laid
down in Ningawwa (supra) and Gorakh
Nath Dube (supra) had held that a
"voidable" document continues to be in
force until it is set aside and such a
document can only be set aside by a
competent
civil
court.
Further,
such
documents were held to be binding upon
the Consolidation Authorities so long as
they are not cancelled or set aside by a
Court vested with the jurisdiction to do so.
Moreover, in Ram Sakal Singh v. Mosamat
Monako Devi, (1997) 5 SCC 192 this Court
has held that the consolidation authorities
do not have the jurisdiction and power to
cancel a document, which is required to be
set aside or cancelled and the document
will continue to be valid till it is cancelled
by a Competent Court i.e. a Civil Court.
This court also held that if the document is
void,
it
would
be
open
for
the
Consolidation Authorities to disregard
such a document & in such a case, they
would get the exclusive jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter. But if the
document is voidable, the Civil Court is
vested with the jurisdiction to declare the
same to be voidable. In the case of voidable
documents,
not
only
would
the
Consolidation Authorities have no power to
cancel such documents, but even the
proceedings pending before any competent
Civil Court would not abate.

11. The allegation here is that the
fraudulent
misrepresentation
was
by
petitioner No. 1's mother, who executed the
sale
deed
dated
09.08.2016
by
12 All. Jagdish Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari & Ors.
519
impersonation, it would make the sale deed
voidable, but not void. As such, in view of
the law laid down by this Court in Gorakh
Nath Dube (supra), the Sale Deed dated
09.08.2016
will
be
binding
on
the
Consolidation Authorities unless it is set
aside by a competent Civil Court and there
would be no bar on jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to try a suit for cancellation of such
a sale deed."

23.
In
light
of
the
aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the clear view
that impugned order dated 27.08.2024
passed by the DDC, Shravasti in Revision
No.412 of 2023 is not sustainable and,
accordingly, it is set aside. The revision
shall stand restored on the Board of the
DDC concerned.

24. A direction is issued to the DDC,
Shravasti that it shall after affording full
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned shall decide the revision afresh
taking note of the decisions referred hereinabove and after taking note of the
respective
submissions
advanced
by
learned counsel for the respective parties
and decide the revision preferably within a
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is placed before
the authority concerned.

25. It is also made clear that the
impugned order has been set aside purely
on the ground that the DDC had no
jurisdiction to abate the proceedings
directing the parties to get their rights
adjudicated in the civil court without
considering the twice impact of the two
sale deeds and without recording a finding
whether the two deeds were void or
voidable and how the law operate. This fact
apart, the Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits insofar as the respective
rights of the parties are concerned, which is
left open to be considered by the DDC.

26. It is further provided that till the
decision of the DDC in terms of this order,
the parties shall maintain status quo that is
to say that none of the parties will alienate,
change the nature of the property or create
any third party right.

27. With the aforesaid, both the writ
petition No.1190 of 2024 and 1192 of 2024
are allowed.

28. Costs are made easy.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 9423 of 1984

Jagdish ...Petitioner
Versus
Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi Adhikari &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. C.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, Addl. C.S.C.,
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
Sections 6 & 16 - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 17 - Unregistered Adoption Deed
Dated 25.10.1974 - Richpal Singh, who
was recorded over the chak, died on
21.1.1975; petitioner filed an application
u/s 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act claiming that
he was adopted by Richpal Singh through