Consolidation Authorities have jurisdiction to decide the validity of a sale deed when the objection raised suggests the document is void, not merely voidable.

SUDHIR NARAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12. 2. 1976 deciding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities to decide the validity of the sale deed.

( 2 ) THE dispute is in respect of the land as recorded in Khata Nos. 176/2 and 177/2 of basic year khatauni. In the basic year Khataunt during the consolidation proceedings the name of Mst. Patiraji was recorded. The petitioner filed objection that she had executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 14 March. 1966 and his name should be recorded in the revenue records. He prayed that the name of Mst. Patiraji, respondent No. 4 be expunged. Respondent No. 4 submitted a reply to the said objection. She stated that the petitioner is closely related. He is her husbands sisters husband. She never executed any sale deed. Her thumb impressions were taken on blank papers for mutation purposes and on such blank papers the sale deed was got prepared. Her entire land is said to have been sold by the said sale deed. She never received any sale consideration from the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE parties led evidence in the case. The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that respondent No. 4 did not execute the sale deed as alleged by the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is an illiterate widow and merely she put her thumb impression on documents. Itself does not establish that she had executed the sale deed. The alleged sale deed was not binding upon her. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order. The appeal was dismissed by the Settlement officer Consolidation by his order, dated 22. 2. 1975. The petitioner filed revision against this order. In the revision he himself raised a preliminary objection that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to consider regarding the validity of the sale deed. This objection of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12. 2. 1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the version of respondent No. 4 was that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and. therefore, the document should be treated as voidable document. The Consolidation Authorities have no Jurisdiction to decide the validity of the sale deed when it is alleged that the sale deed is voidable. He has placed reliance upon the decision gorakh Nath Dube v. Hart Narain Singh. AIR 1973 SC 2451, wherein it was held that if a suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending on the date of notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the suit shall not abate under Section 5 (2) of the Act if the sale deed is challenged on the ground that it is voidable. This decision was considered in Full Bench of this Court in Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, 1976 RD 220, wherein it was held that the suit for cancellation of voidable sale deed will not abate. In another Full Bench decision of this Court ram Padarath and others v. Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 AWC 290. It was held that suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the civil court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status of a tenure-holder is necessarily needed in which event, relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant. In view of this decision, a person can also file suit for cancellation of a void document even in the civil courts as well.

( 6 ) THE question is as to whether the objection taken by respondent No. 4 in regard to the validity of the sale deed can be taken as void or voidable. Respondent No. 4 did not admit that she had executed the sale