B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 19-12-89 passed by the Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 30-12-1988 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 21-7-88 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9-A pertaining to title are sought to be quashed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Smt. Budhia was recorded in revenue papers on the basis of Judgement of the Sub-Divisional Officer in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, (for short the Act), and that Judgement was passed after notification under Section 4, hence the sale deed obtained by respondent no. 5 was incorrect and that the findings recorded by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are against evidence.
(3.) Respondent No. 4 has purchased the land in dispute from Smt. Budhia, who was recorded Bhumidhar, as from a perusal of the entry of Khatauni 1395 Fasli (Annexure-8 to the petition), it is obvious that Smt. Budhia has been ordered to be recorded in pursuance of the order of Assistant Collector First Class in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act. For the purposes of obtaining sale deed a perusal of the relevant record was sufficient for the purchaser and if Smt. Budhia, respondent no. 4 was recorded as bhumidhar, then that was sufficient respondent no. 4, the vendee, to purchase the same and rights of vendee would be protected by the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, as she becomes bona fide purchaser. Consequently it cannot be said that the sale deed was illegal. No suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed within a period of three years. The findings recorded by respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 are based on appraisal of evidence on record. These findings are findings of fact.;