Consolidation authorities cannot abate proceedings based on pending civil litigation and must consider the validity of conflicting documents, giving effect to voidable documents until a competent court cancels them.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. This order will decide the instant petition as well the connected Petition No. 1192 Writ-B of 2024. However, for the sake of convenience the facts are being noticed from Writ-B No. 1190 of 2024.

2. In both the writ petitions, the order passed by the DDC dated 27.8.2024 is under challenge.

3. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by Dr. Krishna Singh and Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondents. Shri Vikram Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, who is impleaded as respondent No. 6 in connected petition and Shri Rakesh Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 5, which is taken on record.

4. At this stage, it will be relevant to mention that the present respondent Nos. 3 to 5, namely, Dileep Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Smt. Dulara Devi are the petitioners in the connected Petition No. 1192 Writ-B of 2024, wherein Salik Ram, Ram Sagar and Ram Chandra are respondents (these three persons are the petitioners in the instant petition No. 1190 Writ-B of 2024).

5. Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No. 1190 of 2024 has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the connected Writ-B No. 1192 of 2024, which is also taken on record.

6. Since, the controversy involved in the instant petitions is common between the parties and both are aggrieved by the same order, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties in both the petitions, the petitions are being disposed of finally at the admission stage without calling any counter-affidavit as the facts are not in dispute and learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the petitions agreed that the order impugned is not sustainable in law.

7. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, the record indicates that the property in question initially belonged to one Ram Sudhi. The dispute relates to plots Nos. 453 and 454 situated in Village-Khargaura Basti, Pargana & Tehsil-Ikauna, District-Shravasti. The petitioners of Writ-B No. 1190 of 2024 claim rights to the property of Ram Sudhi on the basis of a sale-deed dated 29.10.1986, whereas the private respondents in the said petition (who are the petitioners in the connected petition) claim rights from Ram Sudhi based on an agreement to sale dated 30th April, 1976.

8. The dispute arose on account of fact that the petitioners claiming title on the basis of the sale-deed dated 29.10.1986. It was executed by Ram Sudhi in favour of Shri Bagawati and Smt. Badka (parents of the petitioners). It is also stated that on the strength of the said sale-deed, the names of the parents of the petitioners was duly mutated in the revenue records on 30th June, 1987.

9. Contemporaneously, the record reveals that since the private respondents, who are successor-in-interest of Parashu Ram, who claim that Ram Sudhi had executed an agreement to sale dated 30th April, 1976 in respect of the property in dispute, but did not honour his commitment, which led Parashu Ram to institute a suit bearing No. 272 of 1990. The said suit came to be decreed ex parte on 29.1.1996. However, before the said decree could be put into execution, Ram Sudhi executed the sale-deed dated 17.1.1997 in favour of Parashu Ram. The impact was that in respect of the property in question two sale-deeds were set up, one by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners and other by the predecessor-in-interest of private respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

10. In the meantime, once the petitioners became aware of the sale-deed dated 17.1.1997 executed in pursuance of the ex parte decree dated 29.1.1996, hence, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC came to be filed seeking to recall the ex parte judgement and decree dated 29.1.1996. The said applic