K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) DEPUTY Director of Consolidation has held that the sale -deed in question executed by guardian, mother of the Petitioners was allegedly voidable and not a void document and as such he ordered the name of the transferee Bhajjan be mutated in place of the landlords on the basis of the sale -deed in question. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that since permission of the District Judge to sell the land was not obtained under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as such the sale -deed is void. I am unable to agree with this contention in view of the decision reported in Smt. Sursati Den v. Joint Director of Consolidation Basti, 1982 RR 122 where I held that the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act were not to be applied to the agricultural property and no permission of the District Judge was required. Thus the sale -deed in question cannot be held to be void on the ground that no permission was taken while transferring the land in question to the opposite party No. 3, Bhajjan by the natural guardian, mother of the Petitioners.
(3.) THE consolidation authorities cannot refuse to mutate the name of the vendee on the basis of the sale -deed, which can be challenged as void document in the competent civil Court. The consolidation authorities have to record the name of the vendee on the basis of the sale -deed in question, which is not a void document -See, 1976 LLJ 52 (FB). In this view of the matter I do not find any error of fact, law or jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.;