Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) In this petition the dispute relates to certain khatas of two villages viz., Pure Nagari and Pilk-huna, Pargana Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur district Varanasi (now Sant Ravidas Nagar). The plots purchased by the petitioner were recorded in the basic year in the name of Smt. Swaroopa. Smt. Swaroopa died and her heirs viz., opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 Smt. Deo Kali and Ram Nath sold the plots to the petitioners on 5.3.1964. Several objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed. One of these objections was filed by the petitioner on the basis of sale deed executed by the heirs of Smt. Swaroopa. It appears that another sale deed was executed by the heirs of Smt. Swaroopa on 24.9.1964 in favour of respondent No. 4 Vidyadhar represented by Sri Triveni Shanker, Advocate. At least some of the plots if not all in the two sale deeds are common. The objections were contested. Smt. Durgawati, respondent No. 18 who is represented by Sri Faujdar Rai also contested the objections. Her case was that one Ram Tawankal was the mortgagee of some of the plots in the disputed khatas and that he had acquired rights as bhumidhar under the U.P. Zamindan Abolition and Land Reforms Act as no suit was filed against him within the period of limitation. Several issues were framed in the Court of the Consolidation Officer and one of them was as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was void in view of the fact that the petitioner had not obtained any permission of the settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the petitioner. Several appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Several revisions were filed before the Deputy director of Consolidation. The revision of the petitioners was dismissed. All the authorities below found the sale deed of the petitioners to be invalid as it was made after the gazette notification under section 4 (2) without taking permission from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai assisted by S/Sri P.K. Rai and S.K. Shukla for the petitioners Sri Triveni Shanker for respondent No. 4 and Sri Faujdar Rai for respondent No. 18.
(3.) Only one submission has been made by the Counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the authorities below that the sale deed executed by the heirs of Smt. Swaroopa in favour of the petitioner was void in view of the fact that no permission was obtained, is erroneous. It is submitted that notification under section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published on 29.2.1964 and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was made on 5.3.1964 and the publication of the notification in the unit for in respect of one village was made on 11.3.1964 and thereafter in the other village. Counsel for the petitioner referred me to the recital in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the date of publication in the unit was 11.3.1964. What is not in dispute is the fact that the gazette notification under section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and that the publication of the notification in the unit in respect of these two villages was made on a date subsequent to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.;