The court ruled that a sale deed remains valid despite a prior judgment declaring it void, as subsequent appellate orders implicitly set aside that judgment, affirming the authority of the Consolidation Authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur whereby the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 23.02.2024 and 16.11.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed.

3. Assailing the aforesaid three orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the three Consolidation Authorities have committed a patent illegality in ignoring the impact of the judgment passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner namely Ram Bharose and the reason given by the Consolidation Courts that there was a registered sale deed in favour of Sri Sazzad Hussain, the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondent no. 4 to 8 dated 24.01.1981 which could not be ignored and since as per the said sale deeds, the rights were with Sazzad Hussain (thereafter on his successors). The three Authorities have erred in relying upon the same whereas the said sale deed as per the petitioner had been declared void in proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 by means of judgment and decree dated 29.11.2009.

4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed as under:-

5. It is apparently the undisputed case that the disputed property in question was initially recorded in the name of Ram Bharose who was the father of the present petitioner. As per the case of the private respondents, Sri Ram Bharose has executed a registered sale deed in faovur of Sri Sazzad Khan who was the father of the private respondent nos. 4 to 7 by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1981. On the basis of the said sale deed, the name of Sajjad Khan was duly mutated in the revenue records.

6. After more than two decades, Ram Bharose instituted a suit for declaration of his rights under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

7. The record reflects that the private respondents have put in appearance at one point of time and filed their written statements but thereafter did not participate in the proceedings and as such the Revenue Court in the suit under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 passed a decree on 29.11.2009.

8. This order of the Trial Court came to be assailed in an appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division bearing No. 799/2009-10. The said appeal was partly allowed on 25th February, 2012 whereby the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

9. This order of the First Appellate Court was assailed before the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal by the present petitioner bearing No. 26 of 2011-12. The said second appeal came to be dismissed on 02nd May, 2016 upholding the order passed by the First Appellate Court.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that in so far as the challenge to the sale deed is concerned that was not in the favour of the petitioner, however, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the perusal of the order passed by the First Appellate Court, even though, the appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded but in the said order, it has not been indicated that the judgment dated 29.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.

11. Therefore, the submission is that since the order passed by the Trial Court has not been set aside then despite the order of remand, the judgment dated 29.11.2009 of the Trial Court would continue to subsist and its impact would be imperative to be noticed by the courts.

12. It is further stated that even though the Second Appeal was dismissed but the order of the First Appellate Court was upheld meaning thereby that even the Second Appellate Court did not set aside the order dated 29.11.2009.

13. In the interregnum, the consolid