DHARAM DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Dharam Devi was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. She executed a registered sale deed on December 30, 1969, transferring an ares of about 18 bighas of land situated in two different villages, namely, Gaharpur and Udhrenga in district Allahabad in favour of Tribhuwan Nath son of Inder Bahadur, her husband's real brother. In pursuance of the sale deed the name of Tribhuwan Nath was mutated in the revenue records. SMT. Dharam Devi filed a suit on 27-12-1970 for cancellation of the sale deed on the allegation that a fraud and misrepresentation was practised on her in obtaining the sale deed and no consideration was paid to her During the pendency of the civil suit notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued in respect of the two villages where the land in dispute is situated. Tribhuwan Nath who was defendant in the suit raised an objection that the civil court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit, instead it should be abated under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The civil court upheld his objection and passed order on 1st May, abating the suit.

(2.) SMT. Dharam Devi thereafter filed objection before the consolidation authorities raising the same pleas which she had raised before the civil court challenging the validity of the sale deed in pursuance of which Tribhuwan Nath's name was recorded in the village papers over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer repelled the plea raised by SMT. Dharam Devi and upheld the validity of the sale deed and rejected her objection. In appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer on the finding that the sale deed was executed by practising fraud and misrepresentation and it was executed without there being any consideration for the transfer of the land. He further held that, Tribhuwan Nath was not entitled to any interest in the land in dispute. Tribhuwan Nath thereafter preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation however did not decide the validity of the sale deed on merits. He allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the finding that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel or set aside the sale deed executed by SMT. Dharam Devi. Aggrieved SMT. Dharam Devi filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) THE above observations of the Supreme Court make it amply clear that the Consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to disregard a sale deed in respect of agricultural land and that a suit pending before the Civil Court for the cancellation of such sale deed must abate as held by this Court in Jagarnath Shukla's case. In Ram Nath v. Munna, 1976 AWC 412, 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 those 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 a sale deed and 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 4-9-1974, G. C. Mathur, J. expressed similar view. In writ petition No. 6035 of 1972 (Bind Basi v. D. D. C. Azamgarh), decided on U-10-1973, Ojha, J. also expressed a similar view.