The Act is a complete code in itself, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide on matters governed by the Act is expressly barred by Section 36A. The sale-deed executed during the pendency of consolidation proceedings was void in view of the provisions of Section 9 and Section 27 of the Act.

This appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (“Code” for short) is heard on the following substantial questions of law :

(1) Whether the Civil Court could have decided the question as to whether the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was illegal in view of the provisions contained under Section 32 of the said Act ?

(2) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in assuming jurisdiction to discuss the validity of the sale-deed which was declared as illegal and, therefore, null and void by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and further confirmed in the Revision under section 35 of the said Act by the Revisional Authority under the same Act ?

(3) Whether the civil Court could assume jurisdiction to overrule the order passed by the Competent Court under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and confirmed by the Revisional Authority when such jurisdiction was expressly barred under the said Act ?

(4) Whether in view of the order Exhibit 95 passed by the Competent Court under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and confirmed by the Revisional Authority which declared the sale-deed dated 25-11-1992 as illegal, whether the Lower Appellate Court could decree the suit of the respondent 1 on the basis of such sale-deed ?

2. The appellant is defendant 1 in Regular Civil Suit 46/1999 which is instituted by deceased Vishnudas Ramdas Rathod for cancellation of order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recovery of possession and damages and in the alternate for refund of sale consideration of the suit property. The suit property is agriculture field bearing Survey 22/1, admeasuring 4.17 Hectares of village Pimpalshenda.

3. Defendant 2 was the original owner of the suit field, who entered into an agreement dated 21-1-1992 with the plaintiff for sale of the said field. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant 2 executed sale-deed dated 25-5-1992 in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was placed in possession of the suit field on 21-1-1992.

4. The plaintiff further averred that the sale-deed was executed when consolidation proceedings under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Act” for short) were ongoing, and, therefore, defendant 2 executed a further agreement dated 26-5-1992 assuring that appropriate document inter alia sale-deed shall be executed, if necessary, at a later stage. This was done, presumably as the parties were aware of the statutory bar to alienation during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings.

5. The further case of the plaintiff is that defendant 1 entered into an agreement dated 22-3-1992 with the owner defendant 2 and claimed possession thereof which led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in the said proceedings the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangrulpir handed over the possession to defendant 1.

6. Defendant 1 resisted the claim of the plaintiff by written statement Exhibit 39 denying each and every material averment in the suit plaint. Defendant 1 claimed that possession of the suit field was delivered to him by defendant 2 on 22-3-1992 pursuant to agreement of even date. Defendant 1 further pleaded that the sale-deed dated 22-5-1992 executed in favour of plaintiff is void and is challenged under the provisions of the Act. The defendant 1 admitted that he is in possession of the suit field pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangrulpir in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. Defendant 2 resisted the suit claim contending that blank papers and stamps are mis