K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that one Smt. Pram Pati was the original tenure -holder of the disputed land. She is said to have executed a sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the Petitioner Smt. Hafiza, who applied for mutation of her name Under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short the Act, for mutating her name in place of Smt. Pranpati. The opposite party No. 3 Smt. Ramrati also applied for mutation of her name claiming that Smt. Pranpati had executed a Will in her favor and that Smt Pranpati had not executed any sale deed in favor of the Petitioner. The alleged thumb impression on the alleged sale deed is also fictitious and some imposter had executed the sale deed falsely posing her to be Smt. Pranpati. Thus, as per case set up by opposite party No. 3 the sale deed is said to be a void document and the opposite party No. 3 claimed mutation in her name being heir and successor of Smt. Pranpati.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite party No. 3 on coming to know about the alleged sale deed, had filed a suit in the court of Munsif in Civil Court for the cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed was not executed by Smt. Pranpati as she had died prior to the date of execution of the alleged sale deed and that some imposter executed the sale deed falsely posing that she was Smt. Pranpati. The ground on which sale deed was challenged were stated in the suit and accordingly to the pleadings, said sale deed was challenged being a void document as it was alleged that Smt. Pranpati who was recorded tenure -holder, had not executed the alleged sale deed. The opposite party No. 3, as already stated above, had also filed application before the consolidation authorities for getting her name mutated and opposed the case filed by Petitioner transferee Under Section 12 of the Act. Since the suit for cancellation of sale deed was pending in civil court, the opposite party No. 3 moved an application on 19 -05 -1977 before the Consolidation Officer praying for the stay of consolidation proceedings till the decision in the civil suit. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application, vide order dated 27th May, 1977 and the revision filed against that order by opposite party No. 3 was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide Order dated 16 -08 -1977. Subsequently, on 06.04.1978, opposite party No. 3 moved another application with the similar prayer for staying the proceedings in the case before the Consolidation Officer by stating that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed has not yet been disposed of by the Civil Court. This application was opposed by the Petitioner but the Consolidation Officer allowed it vide Order dated 19 -05 -1978 and stayed the proceedings relying upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Laung Sri Devi v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1978 NOC 45 Allahabad. Against this order Petitioner preferred revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation; vide order dated 20th November, 1978. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer Under Section 12 of the Act could not be stayed awaiting decision in the aforesaid suit for cancellation of sale deed. It was further contended that since, as per pleadings, contained in the plaint as well as in the objection filed before the Consolidation Officer by the opposite party No. 3 the sale deed has been challenged being void on the grounds mentioned above, and, as such, the consolidation authorities could determine the question as to whether the sale deed is void on the ground alleged by the opposite party No. 3, or not. Learned Counsel further contended that it is well settled that where the cancellation of the sale deed has been sought to be cancelled on the ground that it is void able on the certain grounds, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to determine the question and decide the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to determine the question as to whether the sale deed is void or not, cannot be taken away merely on account of the pendency of the suit for cancellation of the alleged sale deed in the Civil Court. It was, thus, urged that in any view of the matter the proceedings in the objection filed Under Section 12 of the Act, could not be stayed by the Consolidation Officer and he should have proceeded to decide the case an merits after taking evidence of the parties. I find much substance in this argument. Similar question came up before me for consideration in Umeah v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, 1983 ALJ 692 wherein the proceedings in the pending case Under Section 9(2) of the Act were stayed by the Consolidation Officer till the disposal of the pending suit regarding cancellation of the sale deed pertaining to land in dispute. It was held that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer staying proceedings in the objection Under Section 9(2) of the C.H. Act until final decision in the Civil suit for cancellation of sale deed suffered from manifest error. It was noticed that the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Laung Sri Devi v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1978 (NOC) Allahabad, P. 91, was not approved by the Division Bench in Ram Sewak v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria, : 1982 AWC 575 wherein it was observed: Before parting with this case it is necessary however to observe that the decision in Smt. Laungshri's (supra) turned on the facts of the case. It cannot be urged as a matter of law that in every case where a suit for cancellation of sale deed or gift deed is pending or suit for specific performance has been filed the Consolidation Authorities should stay their hands. Facts of a particular case may justify that order. Finalisation of Consolidation proceedings does not affect the suit for cancellation or specific performance etc. In case Consolidation proceedings are finalized in favor of A" , on strength of sale deed but the same is cancelled or suit for specific performance is decreed in 'favor of ' B ' he can be substituted in place of ' A ' and possession be delivered under rules. Normally therefore, proceedings before Consolidation authorities should not be stayed, (emphasis supplied). Similar question cropped up for consideration before me in another case Mithan Singh v. Chandra Pal Singh : 1982 AWC 694 (2). It was urged by the learned Counsel in the said petition that since his suit was pending in civil court seeking cancellation of sale deed in question, the objection filed by the opposite parties seeking their names to be recorded on the basis of impugned sale deed, should be stayed because consolidation authorities could not determine void ability of the sale deed in question on the ground alleged by the Petitioner. It was further contended that this would be duplication of proceedings and Petitioner will be prejudiced. Disagreeing with these contentions it was observed: If the name of opposite parties 1 to 3 will be recorded on the land in dispute on the basis of the impugned sale deed and the Petitioner ultimately succeeds in getting the sale deed cancelled through the competent civil court where his suit is pending, the name of the Petitioner will then be recorded in place of opposite parties 1 to 3 on the basis of the order passed in the Civil suit. The proceedings in the Consolidation courts cannot wait for long and the Consolidation authorities have to give effect to sale deed which is challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that it is void, then the Consolidation authorities can determine the said question but the sale deed cannot be challenged before the consolidation authorities on the ground that it is void able for reasons stated in the civil suit. The Consolidation authorities will have no jurisdiction to determine that question and they will have to record the names of opposite parties 1 to 3 which will be subject to the final decision in the Civil court see Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, : 1976 AWC 412 (LB) (FB). In this view of the matter the Petitioner will not be prejudiced in any manner.
(3.) IT thus appears fairly well settled that if the sale deed is challenged on the ground that it is void then the Consolidation authorities can determine that question but if the sale deed has been challenged before the Consolidation authorities on the ground that it is voidable, the Civil court would have jurisdiction to decide the suit. If sale deed, as per pleading, contained in the Civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed in the civil court has been challenged on the ground that it is void, then the proceedings in the Civil suit would itself deserve to be abated Under Section 5(2) of the Act. But if the sale deed has been challenged on the ground that it is void able for the reasons stated in the plaint the same would deserve to be decided on merits, but the pendency of such a suit in the civil court would not require the proceedings Under Section 9(2) or Under Section 12 of the Act filed before the Consolidation Officer to be stayed. The consolidation authorities need not wait for the decision of the civil court. If the sale deed is not void but void able the names of the vendees will be recorded on the land in dispute on the basis of the impugned sale deed by the consolidation authorities and if the objector will ultimately succeed in getting the sale deed cancelled through the competent civil court, his name will then be recorded in place of the vendees on the basis of the order passed in the Civil suit. If the sale deed has however, been challenged on the ground that it is void, the consolidation authorities would go into that question on merits and determine the title of the parties. Thus the Consolidation authorities are not required to stay the proceedings till the decision of a suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed in the Civil Court challenging it either on the ground that it is void able or void. If in the Civil suit the sale deed has been challenged on the ground that it is void, the proceedings in the suit would abate and in such a case there would be no question of staying proceedings in the objection pending before the consolidation authorities but even if the sale deed has been challenge J in the Civil court on the ground of void able, the consolidation authorities are in law not bound to stay the proceedings in the pending case before it because there is no specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules, to that effect. The proceedings contemplated by that Act are to be expeditiously determined to achieve the purpose provided in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and therefore, to hold that the Consolidation proceedings should be held until the civil suit is finally decided would nullify the purpose for which the Act was enacted. In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the Order dated 19 -05 -1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer staying the proceedings on the aforesaid second application until final decision in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed suffers from manifest error of law and deserves to be set aside. The Order dated 20th November, 1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation confirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer also suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained.;