JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 4 and learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 and perused the record.

2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order dated 25.1.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, arising out of order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity, 'U.P.C.H. Act').

3. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present writ petition is arising out of objection dated 15.6.2009 under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act filed on behalf of the present petitioner with a prayer that plot No. 245 area 1.0790 hectare, plot No. 260 area 1.0030 hectare and plot No. 289 area 1.6190 hectare situated in village Ghar, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat may be kept out of consolidation operation on the ground that with respect to these plots, civil suit is going on between the parties. It is averred in the application that property belongs to Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner), who was of unsound mind, and taking benefits of his mental illness respondent No. 4 has got sale deed dated 8.9.2011 executed in his favour. On the basis thereof, he got his name mutated in the revenue record. Objection goes on alleging that Shiv Lal had filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 573 of 2011 against Dharmendra Kumar (respondent No. 4), which is pending consideration. Civil Court has granted interim order dated 19.9.2011 for maintaining status quo on spot. Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection moved by the petitioner, vide its order dated 15.7.2021 (annexure No. 3), with an observation that plot No. 260 is already out of consolidation operation and exchange value of plot No. 289 and 245 and their surrounding plots has already been fixed in the consolidation operation, therefore, prayer, to keep the aforesaid plots out of consolidation operation, cannot be accepted. Order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer was affirmed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide its order dated 25.1.2022 and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its order dated 20.4.2022, which are under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for injunction has been filed against the private respondent No. 4 and interim order is granted in the aforesaid suit for maintaining status quo over the land in question, therefore, consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to continue any type of proceeding relating to the subject matter of the suit. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs. District Judge, Mau and others, reported in 1999 (1) AWC 152. By interpreting the provisions as enunciated under Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that the consolidation courts have got no jurisdiction to examine the legality and validity of the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that the pendency of the civil suit bars the jurisdiction of the consolidation court to examine the right and title of the parties over the land in question. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the consolidation courts have passed the order without application of mind and without considering the provisions of law, as enunciated under the U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, orders impugned are illegal and suffers from infirmities and, therefore, are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 contended that Shiv Lal had executed the regist