Failure to challenge abatement order and lack of disclosure of right or title over the land in dispute led to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akbar Ali Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Dev Shukla, learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents no.1 to 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of abnormal conduct of his father i.e. respondent no.4 (now deceased), the petitioner was forced to enter into legal battle with him and file Injunction Suit No.191 of 1977; Ram Tahal Versus Ram Ajore and others, in which the interim injunction was granted on 14.10.1977 restraining the respondent no.4 from executing the sale deed. But inspite of the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court, the respondent no.4 executed the sale deed in favour of respondents no.5 and 6 on 18.10.1977, whereas the land in dispute was mortgaged in favour of the Land Development Bank. The petitioner filed another Suit No.50 of 1981 for cancellation of sale deed and during pendency of the Suit, the consolidation proceedings started, therefore, the Suit was abated. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9A-2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the Act 1953), which was rejected. Therefore the petitioner had filed an appeal and thereafter revision which have also been dismissed without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, therefore the petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the said orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale deed was executed in violation of the injunction order dated 14.10.1977, therefore it was a void document and the Suit for cancellation of sale deed could not have been abated because the suit for cancellation of sale deed is a suit of civil nature which is cognizable by the Civil Court only, therefore the consolidation courts cannot decide it. He relied on Section 5 of the Act 1953 and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 in these regards. Thus the submission is that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed by this court. He placed reliance on Ram Padarath and others Versus Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others; 1989 AWC (FB)(LB) 290 And Ram Asrey Singh and others Versus State of U.P. and others; 2006(1) ALJ 533.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 submitted that the respondent no.4 had no knowledge of the order of interim injunction at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore it cannot be said that the sale deed was executed in violation of the interim injunction order. He further submitted that loan amount of Land Development Bank has been paid, therefore there was no objection from the Land Development Bank. Accordingly the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law. The petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, which have only been placed on records of this case.

6. The respondent no.4 had died during pendency of the present writ petition, therefore his name was deleted in pursuance of the order dated 05.01.2006 passed by this court.

7. As borne out from the pleadings and impugned orders placed on record, the petitioner had filed Regular Suit No.191 of 1977; Ram Tahal Singh Versus Ram Ajore and others for permanent injunction, in which an interim injunction was granted on 14.10.1977 restraining the respondent no.4 from executing the sale deed of the land in question. However the sale deed was executed by the respondent no.4 in favour of respondents no.5 and 6. on 18.10.1977. Thereafter the petitioner filed another suit no.50 of 1981 for cancellation of sale deed as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and disclosed in one of the impugned orders, whereas as per other