JUDGMENT

S.D. Khare, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued calling upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., camp at Aligarh (opposite party No. 1) to produce the record of revision case No. 111 of 1963-64 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, village Edalpur, pargana and tahsil Khair, district Aligarh, Sher Singh v. Ram Swarup, decided on 27th May, 1964, so that the order passed in that revision case may be quashed.

2. The facts leading to the writ petition, briefly stated, are that certain plots of khata No. 313. situate in village Nagaria Darkana, Mazra Edalpur, district Aligarh, were sirdari plots of Sher Singh and others in which Sher Singh had a half share. On 13th August, 1958, the aforesaid Sher Singh deposited ten times of the rent to become bhumidhar of the plots in suit and on the same date he executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and delivered possession over the plots to him. When the mutation proceedings were started Sher Singh and Daryao raised an objection, but subsequently the matter was compromised, and on 23rd August, 1959, the plots were mutated in the name of the petitioner. In spite of the fact that a compromise had been arrived at during the mutation proceedings, Sher Singh instituted a civil suit for a declaration that the sale-deed was invalid on account of fraud, undue influence and lack of consideration. That suit, however, failed, and an appeal against that decision was pending when the village, where the plots in question lay, came under consolidation operations. As a result of the notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the proceedings before the appellate court were stayed. During the course of the consolidation proceedings Sher Singh filed an objection on those very grounds on which his suit filed earlier was based. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Sher Singh on the ground that on the date the transfer was made in favour of the petitioner Sher Singh had not become the bhumidhar of the plots in dispute and was, therefore, not entitled to transfer them in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who heard the appeal against that decision, allowed that appeal. Against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, a revision application under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Sher Singh, and the Deputy Director allowed the revision and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer.

3. The only ground on which the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision was that the sale-deed having been executed on the date when the deposit was made was invalid because Sher Singh, the vendor, had not become the bhumidhar of that land immediately on making the deposit but he became its bhumidhar on a subsequent date when the order in his favour was passed under Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. The contention of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in interpreting Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that according to the correct interpretation of those provisions of law he should have held that Sher Singh had become bhumidhar of the land in question immediately on depositing ten times of the rent.

4. During the course of his arguments and in support of his contention that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 had committed an error apparent on the face of the record the learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in any view of the matter the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been given to the purchaser and the sale made in his favour should not have been disturbed.

5. In the counter affidavit which was filed by Sher Singh the fact of the exe