A sale deed executed during consolidation proceedings without the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is void and confers no right on the transferee.

S.R. MISRA, J.

1. The main controversy in this case is as to whether a sale deed executed during the course of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) u/s 5(1)(II)(c) of the Act is a void transaction; and, what will be the effect of such a sale.

2. To appreciate the controversy, the relevant pedigree is given below:

Moharman
Mohar Singh	Lehar	Harua	Bhanwar Singh
			Hukuma (widow)
Natthi	Panna
Sukhi Ram	Geetam Singh		Smt. Santi Devi

3. The dispute relates to khata No. 13, which was recorded in the name of Khushi Ram, Respondent No. 5, Geetam Singh and Smt. Hukma widow of Atar Singh in the basic year the share of Khusi Ram and Geetam Singh was 1/4 each whereas that of Atar Singh and after his death, his widow Smt. Hukma was half in the said khata in dispute. Smt. Hukma had only one daughter and admittedly, Hukma executed a registered will in favour of Respondent No. 4 on 21-12-1978 and in her turn Respondent No. 4 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioners. Khushi Ram Respondent No. 5 based his claim on an unregistered will dated 25-2-1980 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Hukma in his favour. When the Consolidation proceedings commenced, three sets of objections were filed-one by the Petitioner to the effect that the Respondent No. 4 has executed a sale deed in his favour in pursuance to an agreement to sell. There has already been an agreement to sell. The khata in dispute and the Respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the said agreement, had already parted with the property in dispute. So they prayed their names to be recorded in the revenue papers over the disputed khata on the basis of the said sale deed. The second objection was filed by the Respondent No. 5 claiming that his name be recorded in place of Smt. Hukma on the basis of an unregistered will executed by the mother of Respondent No. 4, i.e. Smt. Hukma. The third objection was filed by Respondent No. 4 claiming that her name be recorded over the land in dispute as the mother of Smt. Shaoti Devi had executed a will in her favour.

4. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 24-8-1982, recorded a finding that Smt. Hukma had executed a will in favour of her daughter Smt. Shanti Devi, Respondent No. 4, and, therefore, the Respondent No. 4 was held to be entitled for Bhumidhari share to the extent of half in the property in dispute. The Consolidation Officer also considered the alleged sale deed in favour of the Petitioners by the Respondent No. 4, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and held that the notification u/s 4(2)of the Act was made on 16th May 1981 and since the sale deed is subsequent to the notification, having been obtained without the permission u/s 5(1)(ii)(e) of the Act, the same is illegal. He also disbelieved the contention of the Petitioners that the application for permission was not rejected and kept in abeyance. In fact, he came to the conclusion that the application for permission was rejected. He also held that the Respondent No. 4 had never relinquished her interest in the land in dispute in favour of Respondent No. 5. Separate appeals were filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 against the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer. The appellate Court also did not accept the contention of the Petitioners that there was an agreement to sell in pursuance of which he came in possession over the disputed land. It was further held that the order pertaining to permission u/s 5(1)(i)(c) of the Act was just and proper and the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 4 could not confer any right