JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. This is plaintiff's writ petition arising out of suits filed for declaration of title to the disputed land and recovery of possession under section 229-B read with section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the defendants. 2. Ram Achal, father of the present petitioners, filed three suits with the allegations that Smt. Rambasi had sold the disputed plots to him through a sale deed dated 24-4-1935 and that he had become Bhumidhar of the disputed land and was in possession. It was also alleged that the father of the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 in the present writ petition had managed to get unregistered sale deeds executed by Rambasi though after the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the same were ante dated. The father of the contesting opposite parties also managed to get mutation order on the basis of unregistered sale deeds in favour of the contesting opposite parties. During consolidation operation when the plaintiff filed an application for mutation of his name, he came to know of the fraud, therefore, he filed the suits for declaration of his title and in the alternative for possession. The defence in the suits was that the plaintiff's suits were barred by the provision of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff, as is evident from the issues framed in the judgment of the trial court dt. 16-6-1966. All the revenue courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suits due to the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Aggrieved by their judgments, the petitioners, being heirs of the plaintiff, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revenue courts have patently erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suits due to bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He has placed reliance upon the ruling Tilak Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1982 RD 330. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgments. He has also distinguished the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has placed reliance upon the ruling Tilak Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1982 RD 330. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgments. He has also distinguished the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, the ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has emphasized that the sale deeds in the present case have been executed after 8th March, 1963 ; hence the provision of section 12 of the Amended U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would be attracted and the revenue courts were fully justified in negativing the claim of the plaintiff due to bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to him, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have applied for mutation of his name on the basis of the sale deed in his favour and when he failed, he cannot maintain a regular title suit before a revenue court due to bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He has placed reliance upon the provision of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which reads as below : " Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 4 or consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act. " 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. " 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. For the sake of argument, I assumed that the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is inapplicable to the facts ana circumstances involved in the present case and at the same time I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties was that on the basis of alleged sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff should have got his name mutated over the disputed land during the consolidation operation. It is noteworthy that the sale-deed relied upon by the plaintiff was dated 24-4-1964 and de-notification under section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has taken place on 3-10-1964. There is no limitation for seeking mutation on the basis of title deed before the consolidation authorities nor there is any law to the effect that if mutation has not been sought on the basis of a transfer-deed, transferee would loose his right due to mere circumstances of not seeking mutation. In this view of the matter, I am. unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the plaintiff failed to initiate proceeding for mutation before the consolidation authority, which could be initiated ; hence his title could be investigated by the Civil or Revenue court. Moreover in the present case I find that the plaintiff-petitioners had alleged that the father of the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 had fraudulently obtained sale-deeds in favour of the contesting opposite-parties and got them ante-dated ; hence unless the revenue courts did not accept the contention of the plaintiff regarding fraudulent action on the part of the father of the contesting opposite-parties 6 to 9, they could not hold that the plaintiff's suits were barred by the provision of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In view of the ruling in un-reported judgment Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. In view of the ruling in un-reported judgment Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed Ahmad, 1980 SC 979 it is evident that when the plaintiff alleges fraud regarding the proceedings before the consolidation authorities and if he succeeds in proving the same, bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would not be attracted to the plaintiff's suits. In the present case, the allegations of fraudulent transaction entered into between the recorded tenure holder and the contesting opposite-parties have not at all, been examined, yet the revenue courts have applied the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. To my mind, they have patently erred in this regard. 5. It is note-worthy that if the plaintiff's contention is correct that the registered sale-deed executed by the recorded tenure-holder in his favour was a valid document and in pursuance thereof he had entered into possession over the disputed land, a relevant question would arise whether the sale-deeds, relied upon by the contesting opposite-parties, conferred any valid title upon them if they were really executed after the registered sale-deed, but they were ante dated. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the revenue courts yet the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been applied to the plaintiff's suits, I think that the approach of the revenue courts to the problem is patently incorrect. 6. Since the mutation orders in favour of the contesting opposite-parties were obtained behind the back of the plaintiff and the possibility of the sale-deeds in favour of the contesting opposite parties being ante-dated has not been ruled out, yet the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been applied to the claim of the plaintiff by the revenue courts, I think that the revenue courts have patently erred in deciding the claims of the parties. It is also noteworthy that the sale-deeds in favour of the contesting opposite-parties are three in number and in respect of different plots, in such a circumstances how far valid title passed to the contesting opposite-parties, whose names were mutated on the basis of the sale-deeds behind the back of the plaintiff. It is also noteworthy that the sale-deeds in favour of the contesting opposite-parties are three in number and in respect of different plots, in such a circumstances how far valid title passed to the contesting opposite-parties, whose names were mutated on the basis of the sale-deeds behind the back of the plaintiff. It would be necessary to examine how for mutation order in favour of the contesting opposite-parties would stand as a bar to the claim of the plaintiff in regular title suit. As indicated above, the revenue courts have not examined the claim of the plaintiff regarding fraudulent transactions in favour of the contesting opposite-parties and they have also failed to approach the controversy between the parties from correct angle, their judgments, appear to me, suffering from patent errors and they deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgments of all the revenue courts are, hereby, quashed and the trial court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.