The validity of a sale deed prevails when it is not challenged by the original owner, highlighting the consolidation authority's limitations in cancelling instruments and prioritizing ongoing civil litigation for property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.

3. Shri R.S.Tewari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 on caveat.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the D.D.C., Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents, has been allowed and the order of remand passed by the S.O.C. has been set aside.

5. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition, are being noticed hereinafter.

a. The disputed property in question i.e. plot no.1238 belonged to one Shri Amar Pal.

b. Amar Pal had executed a sale deed dated 16.6.1999 through his Power of Attorney holder in favour of private respondent no.3. Subsequently, Amar Pal executed another sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner namely Kamal Kishore Srivastava on 23.7.1999.

(c). Apparently, this dispute was escalated once Kamal Kishore Srivastava who was claiming rights on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.7.1999 sought his mutation whereas the private respondent no.3 claiming rights on the basis of sale deed dated 16.6.1999 also claimed mutation in proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

(d). The parties have been contesting the matter and this is the third round of litigation. Initially, the mutation order was passed on 7.8.1999 which was assailed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by filing an appeal before the S.O.C. The same came to be allowed ex parte whereafter the private respondents moved an application for recall which was allowed. Upon this order of remand, the matter was first taken up before the D.D.C. which did not find favour and the matter was remitted once again to the court of C.O. to decide the controversy afresh. In the second stage, again the orders were passed against which the present petitioners preferred a revision wherein by making certain observations, the matter was remitted to the consolidation officer to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made by the court of D.D.C.

(e). Once again the matter was reconsidered and the C.O. once again came to the conclusion that the initial order dated 7.8.1999 in favour of the private respondents, was appropriate against which an appeal was filed which was allowed and the matter was remanded against which the private respondents preferred a revision which came to be allowed affirming the order passed by the C.O.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, Shri Prem Chandra Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the order of C.O. was patently illegal inasmuch as certain observations were made by the D.D.C. while remanding the matter and that order had to be complied with but without making consideration of the order of remand, the C.O. has passed the order which is illegal. He has also pointed out that the issue whether Amar Pal, the original tenure holder, had appeared and given his affidavit that he concurred with the sale deed executed by him in favour of the private respondents dated 16.6.1999 ought to have been considered in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. Whether the original tenure holder namely Amar Pal had received sale consideration was to be adjudicated as well as the fact whether the sale deed in favour of the private respondents dated 16.6.1999 executed on the basis of the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by Amar Pal in favour of the husband of private respondent no.3 and whether this transaction was valid in l