Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been taken up in the revised list. Sri Subhashish Banerjee Advocate is present for the petitioner.
(2.) The sole contesting respondent Smt. Jigna stands substituted by Karingan. The dispute revolves from the plot No. 92 situated in village Tharuapur, pargana Ra-soolpur, Tehsil Dumariaganj, District Basti. In the basic year Khatauni, the name of the petitioner stood recorded on the disputed plot. An objection under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) was preferred by Smt. Jigna on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner stood mutated in the revenue records. The grievance of the objector before the Consolidation Officer was that though she had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar on the relevant time but she was misled and on account of fraud being practiced on her, she endorsed thumb impression on the sale deed believing to be a 'Will'. The payment of sale consideration was also denied. The Consolidation Officer after taking into consideration the evidence arrived at a finding that the sale deed was a validly executed document for valuable consideration and, therefore, the name of the petitioner was rightly entered into the revenue records by means of the order dated 19.4.1982 and dismissed the objection. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under section 11(1) of the Act was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who also confirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.7.1982. A revision under section 48 of the Act was preferred before the Deputy Director Consolidation, who allowed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 13.7.1983.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgments before me and has submitted that since the execution of the document i.e. sale deed was admitted by Smt. Jigna, it cannot be said that it was a void document. Two Courts below have rightly come to a conclusion that the sale deed was a voidable document but at no point of time, the contesting respondent ever tried to get the sale deed cancelled, therefore, the Courts below correctly rejected the objection Of the contesting respondent. The order of Deputy Director Consolidation is altogether illegal. No cogent reasons have been given for setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation.;