JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - The following points have been referred to this Full Bench for decision by order dated April 11, 1975 passed by Sri B.R. Vohra, the member of the Board: (1) Is a Court competent to look into the validity of an allotment made by Gaon Sabha of land vested in it in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or could this only be tested in proceedings under Section 198 of the aforesaid Act? (2) Whether instructions issued by the Government in which land vested in Gaon Sabha should be allotted have the force of law? 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that in declaratory suit where the lease has not been cancelled under Section 198(2) of Act I of 1951, the validity of the lease cannot be looked into because for it a different forum has been prescribed. Reliance has been placed on 1980 R.J. pp. 191 and 198; 1970 R.D. p. 138 and 1973 R.D. p. 83. 4. It was argued in reply that in a declaratory suit the validity of the lease can be looked into and if the lease is illegal and void it should not be given effect. Reliance has been placed on 1975 R.J., p. 54; 1976 R.D. 220 and A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2451. 5. In Rasala and others v. D.D.C., U.P., Lucknow Camp at Saharanpur and others, 1970 R.D. 138 it has been held by his Lordship Mr. Satish Chandra, J. (now C.J.) as follows: "Till an allotment is cancelled under Section 198(3) the right, title and interest remains with the allottee and has to be recognised. This provision would show that simply because the Gaon Sabha executed the lease in contravention of the rules the lease would not become void. It remains liable to be cancelled. Till it is cancelled by the appropriate authority, no proceedings relating to its validity can be gone into in proceedings of mutation. Further the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment has been conferred on the Assistant Collector. The same jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Consolidation Officer." 6. In Jatashankar v. State, 1973 R.D. 82 it was held by Mr. Till it is cancelled by the appropriate authority, no proceedings relating to its validity can be gone into in proceedings of mutation. Further the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment has been conferred on the Assistant Collector. The same jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Consolidation Officer." 6. In Jatashankar v. State, 1973 R.D. 82 it was held by Mr. M.S. Haq, Member, as follows: "The power of cancellation rests only with the Collector or the S.D.O. and a Revenue Court deciding a case under Section 198(4) is not competent to pass an order cancelling any lease executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of an allottee, the competent authority is only the Collector or the S.D.O. The scope of a suit under Section 198(4) is limited only to the consideration of the question as to whether or not the lease on the basis of which declaration is sought and which lease has been cancelled under Section 198(2) was a valid lease or not. In other words, the question has to be examined as to whether or not the cancellation of lease was justified. But when a lease has not been challenged before and cancelled by the Competent authority the court which is deciding a declaration suit on the basis of this lease cannot cancel it." 7. In Mohan Lal v. State of U.P., 1980 R.J. 191 it has been held by Sri I.B. Singh, Member as follows:- "Unless the lease is got cancelled by the State Government in a proceeding for cancellation under Section 198(4) either by the Collector or the S.D.O., as the case may be, it is not open to the State to challenge its validity in a regular suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951. The only forum available to the State Government is under the provisions of Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951. The State Government is not estopped from challenging its validity but the only forum it can avail of is the court of the Collector or the S.D.O. Its position is not better or not worst than that of an aggrieved person as mentioned in that section. Unless the lease is cancelled under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951, its validity cannot be gone into in regular suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951." 8. Unless the lease is cancelled under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951, its validity cannot be gone into in regular suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951." 8. In Smt. Larethi v. State of U.P., 1980 R.J. 197 Sri P.C. Saxena, Member, disagreeing with the view taken in 1975 R.J. 54 held as follows:- "With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue in the ruling cited. Under law, as it now stands, a lease granted by the Gram Sabha can be cancelled only under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Where the specific procedure prescribed by this Section was not followed in a particular case, it has to be held that a valid lease is in existence. It would not be proper for a court to hold that the lease is invalid in the absence of any action under Section 198(4) against the lease. In the present case the contention of the defendants was not that lease deed relied upon by the plaintiffs was a forgery or had been executed by a person not authorised under law to execute the same. Had such a case been taken up, the court would certainly be bound to give in favour of the defendants, refuse to give the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs. It was not, however, open to the court to take up for consideration or allow evidence to be led in respect of lease that could have been taken up only in a suit under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." We agree with view of Sri Saxena and disapprove the view taken by Sri Mubarak Hasan in 1975 R.J. 54. 9. In Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, 1976 R.D. 220 (H.C., F.B.) it was held following and explaining A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2451 as follows:- "Both void and voidable instruments do not stand at par with reference to Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The void documents were invalid and were liable to be disregarded by consolidation authorities viz. In Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, 1976 R.D. 220 (H.C., F.B.) it was held following and explaining A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2451 as follows:- "Both void and voidable instruments do not stand at par with reference to Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The void documents were invalid and were liable to be disregarded by consolidation authorities viz. the voidable documents, was concerned, their legal effect can be taken away only by their being cancelled or set aside and that the documents could be cancelled only by a court having power to cancel them and that the documents remain binding so long as they were not cancelled. The consolidation authorities had no power to cancel such documents. The documents which are voidable can be cancelled by the civil courts only and cannot be cancelled by consolidation authorities and they remain effective till cancelled and liable to be given effect to by consolidation authorities till they are cancelled by a competent court." Void documents can be disregarded by any court, but as far as voidable documents are concerned they should be cancelled only by the court having jurisdiction and authority under the law. When special law provides for their cancellation in definite forum, it shall be cancelled only by that authority as it the case regarding a lease granted by the Land Management Committee. Hence, its validity cannot be looked into in a suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 by any revenue court. Its validity can be looked into only in a proceeding under Section 198 of Act I of 1951. 10. No arguments were advanced by either party regarding point No. 2. 11. Rule 115-A and 115-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules run as follows:- "115-A. The State Government may issue directions to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samities (Land Management Committees) established under Section 28-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the following among other matters. No arguments were advanced by either party regarding point No. 2. 11. Rule 115-A and 115-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules run as follows:- "115-A. The State Government may issue directions to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samities (Land Management Committees) established under Section 28-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the following among other matters. (1) Land Management, including preservation of land for purpose of public utility; (2) Expenditures of the amount pleaded at the disposal of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti by the Gaon Panchayat; and (3) Matters relating to the functions of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samities as laid down in Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, in so far as they appear necessary for the purposes of the Act." "115-B. The directions on the subjects mentioned in rule 115-A shall be issued by State Government to the Land Management Committee through the Collector of the district. Explanation (I). The directions contained in the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual shall be deemed to be the directions issued in accordance with rule 115-A. Explanation (II). The direction contained in the Gaon Sabha Manual so far as they are necessary for purposes of this Act and are not inconsistent with these rules, shall be deemed to be the directions issued under rule 115-A, so long as they remain in force." 12. The directions issued by the State Government to the Land Management Committee regarding the management of land vested in the Gaon Sabha have got the force of law and the direction contained in Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual shall be deemed to be directions issued in accordance with Rule 115-A according to Explanation (I) of Rule 115-B, and the directions in the Gaon Samaj Manual as far as they are necessary for purposes of this Act and are not in consistent with these rules, shall be deemed to be directions issued under Rule 115-A so long as they remain in force. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by the State Government under Rule 115-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules regarding land management, including preservation of land for purposes of public utility, have got force of law it they are not inconsistent with the other provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 13. 13. So our answers to points (1) and (2) referred to us are, respectively, as follows: (1) That a Court is not competent to look into the validity of an allotment made by Land Management Committee of land vested in it, in a suit under Section 115-B of Act I of 1951, and its validity could be tested only in a proceeding under Section 198 of the said Act. (2) That the directions issued under Rule 115-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules by the State Government on matters of land management, including with regard to the manner in which land vested in Gaon Sabha should be allotted, have the force of law if they are not inconsistent with the other provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.