JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - The Petitioner, Badri, had filed a suit for possession over one third-portion of certain plots, more specifically described at the foot of the plaint and for recovery of damages. One of the pleas taken in the defence was that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This question was taken up us a preliminary question. The Court of first instance did not accept this contention and held that the suit was not barred by Section 49. The revislonal Court has, however, taken a different view because of the fact that according to the Plaintiff's own case the transaction in dispute was a void transaction and further in consolidation proceedings the Petitioner had an opportunity to agitate this question. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the Petitioner that the view taken by the court below is erroneous, inasmuch as even in respect of a void transaction a suit for cancellation is maintainable only in a Civil Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh 1981 AWC 328 . The ratio of that decision is that both, in regard to void and voidable transactions, the suits are cognizable by a Civil Court only. In the present case the question is different and it is whether or not the present suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. When according to the Plaintiffs own showing the transaction in dispute was a void transaction, the Consolidation Authorities could have ignored it--See Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2451 In the present case it has been found by the court below as a fact that the Petitioner had an opportunity in consolidation proceedings to agitate this matter and put forward his claim but that he did not do. Thus, the finding that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not suffer from any infirmity. 3. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs to Respondents 2 to 4.