A registered sale deed's validity is contingent on its proper registration; prior executed deeds are void if subsequent registered deeds exist for the same property.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sadab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief :

"A. That by a writ of certiorari the order dated 27.1.1982 Annexure No. 7 passed by opposite-party no.1 the order dated 14.4.1980 Annexure No. 6 passed by opposite party no. 2 and the order dated 17.1.1969 passed by opposite party no.3 may kindly be quashed."

3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that an application was filed by Mohd. Haneef before the Consolidation Officer u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 seeking mutation of his name in Khata Nos.236 and 237 on the basis of two sale deeds, one was executed on 25.04.1969 by Bachchu regarding Khata No.236 which was registered on 10.06.1969 and second sale deed which was also executed on 25.04.1969 by Smt. Amina regarding Khata No.237 and same was registered on 18.06.1969. Another application was filed by the respondent-Abid Ali to mutate his name on the basis of two sale deeds, one was executed by Bachchu regarding Khata No.236 on 09.06.1969 which was also registered on 11.06.1969 and another sale deed executed by Smt. Amina on 09.06.1969 which was registered on 11.06.1969 regarding Khata No.237. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the case, observed that the thumb impression on the sale deed executed in favour of Mohd. Haneef appears to be vague. Therefore, he ignored the sale deed executed in favour of Mohd. Haneef on 25.04.1969 and directed to record the name of Abid Ali on the basis of two sale deeds both executed on 09.01.1969 but registered on 11.06.1969 regarding Khata Nos.236 and 237. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Mohd. Haneef before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal but the appeal was dismissed, thereafter, revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revision filed by Mohd. Haneef. Therefore, present writ petition has been filed challenging all the three above orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sale deed executed in his favour by the tenure holder of the land in question namely, Bachchu and Smt. Amina were earlier to the sale deed executed by Bachchu and Smt. Amina in favour of the private respondent, Abid Ali. It is further submitted that though the sale deed regarding Khata No.237 was registered on 18.06.1969 and the sale deed regarding Khata No.236 was registered on 10.06.1969 but in view of Section 47 of the India's Registration Act, 1908 (in short 'the Act, 1908'), the registration of sale deed relates back to the date of execution, therefore, the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners will deem to have transferred the right in his favour on 25.04.1969 and merely because subsequent sale deed dated 09.06.1969 regarding Khata No.237 executed in favour of respondent-Abid Ali registered prior to the registration of the sale deed of the petitioners will not have any effect, as moment the sale deed of the petitioners was registered on 18.06.1969, it will relate back to the date of execution i.e. 25.04.1969. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the p