K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) THERE was a dispute about title between Lalji petitioner and Asharfi respondent No. 5, both of whom claimed as successors of Sewak deceased. An exparte order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 21-3-1980. It was set aside on Lalji's application on 18-10-77. THEREafter Asharfi applied for permission to sell the land. This permission was granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 22-10-77 and in pursuance of the same Asharfi executed a sale deed on 31-10-77. Later, on 21-3-80, Asharfi and Lalji filed a joint application before the Consolidation Officer in which Asharfi admitted Lalji's claim. The Consolidation Officer, proceeding exparte against the vendees, who are opposite parties 3 and 4, directed that the name of Lalji be recorded on the basis of the compromise. This exparte order has been set aside on the application of opposite parties 3 and 4 on 16th December, 1981 during the pendency of this writ petition. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation against the order granting permission. This revision has been dismissed with the observation that the dispute about title was still pending before the Consolidation Officer and that there was no question of cancellation of permission after sale deed had already been executed in pursuance of the permission. Aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Director Consolidation Lalji has come to this court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I am unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that a rival claimant cannot execute a sale deed pending adjudication of the disputed title. Even though the title of a vendor, who claims to be owner of a property, be disputed, he can sell it, though of course the vendee will get only such title, if any, as the vendor actually possessed and is ultimately adjudicated to have possessed. The grant of permission under Sec. 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation does not involve or require any investigation of title, nor can such permission be refused merely on the ground that the dispute about title has not been finally adjudicated upon. The only thing that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has to see in connection with the permission is as to whether the proposed transfer will have any adverse effect on the consolidation scheme. Thus, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation. The question of title is still at large before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer should decide it on merits as between Lalji and opposite parties 3 and 4. If Asharfi had already executed a sale deed in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 he was not competent to enter into any compromise or to make any admission subsequently to the prejudice of his vendees. Of course if it is found by the consolidation authorities that Asharfi had no title then the sale deed executed by Asharfi in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 would be of no effect. In this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed but no order is made as to costs. Petition dismissed.;