JUDGMENT S. K. Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.8.1975, 7.11.1974 and 24.9.1974 (Annexures-10, 9 and 8 respectively). 2. Proceedings are under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore, for the purpose of disposal, the facts in brief will be useful to be summarised. 3. The dispute was initially in respect to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 133, 132, 94 and 111 situated in village Begahani, district Allahabad. Now it appears that the land of Khata No. 111 is not in dispute and as submitted by the learned counsel the dispute is confined only in respect to the land comprised in Khata No. 133 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of Jag Narain and Buddhu and the land comprised in Khata Nos. 132 and 111 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of Jag Narain, Buddu and Sat Narain. For better understanding the pedigree which is admitted between the parties will also be useful to be reproduced here : Sadho Parigan Jagan Nath Sarvajeet Buddhu Mahadeo Satya Narain Jag Narain (Petitioner) (O.P. No. 7) Raja Ram Ragho Prasad Mata Deen (O.P. No. 4) (O.P. No. 5) (O.P. No. 6) 4. There appears to be no dispute that petitioner initially had 1/3rd share in the land in dispute but it was claimed that Buddhu the predecessor of the contesting respondents executed registered sale deed on 27.4.1946 in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which he became entitled to 2/3rd share in the land. It was claimed that when on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner his name was not mutated he filed suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The claim is that suit filed by the petitioner against Buddhu was decreed on 22.4.1958. It was claimed that when on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner his name was not mutated he filed suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The claim is that suit filed by the petitioner against Buddhu was decreed on 22.4.1958. It is thereafter when again name of the petitioner could not be recorded he filed application under Section 39 of the Land Revenue Act in the year 1967 which was rejected by the first Court in the year 1968 and thereafter revision filed by him was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner in the year 1971 and thereafter the suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed which was abated on the start of the consolidation proceedings. At the start of the consolidation proceedings objection by the petitioner was filed claiming 2/3rd share in the land in dispute. The basis was the same as was in the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Petitioner filed original sale deed and also examined witnesses including the scribe and marginal witnesses to prove the sale deed. Other evidence was also filed by the parties. The Consolidation Officer after hearing arguments from both sides rejected petitioner’s claim and allowed only 1/3rd share to the petitioner which he originally had. Judgment of the Consolidation Officer was maintained upto the revisional court as appeal and revision filed by him failed. It is thus against all the three concurrent judgments petitioner has come up to this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the admitted factual position which is borne out from the record, judgments of the courts below are erroneous and therefore it is the case where even no remand is required and the writ petition is liable to be allowed by this Court. Submission is that on the basis of the registered sale deed in petitioner’s favour the suit under 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed against Buddhu, the father of the respondents which was decreed on 22.4.1958 and thereafter, neither Buddhu nor his heirs has ever challenged the correctness of that decree in the competent forum and therefore, that will operate against them and thus it is sufficient ground for accepting petitioner’s claim about his rights as claimed in the consolidation proceedings. It is further submitted that going into the validity of the sale deed by the consolidation courts and giving of the findings that petitioner has not been able to prove the sale deed is beyond the scope of scrutiny as on the findings given by the Consolidation Officer the sale deed has not been held to be void and therefore, respondents having not challenged the validity of the sale deed before the competent civil court it was not open for the consolidation authorities to ignore its worth. Submission is that merely on account of non mutation of the name of the petitioner for long time on the basis of the registered sale deed or on the basis of the decree in his favour the worth of either the sale deed or of the decree cannot be ignored and on that ground it cannot be held that the rights of the petitioner has extinguished. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act it was obligatory on the part of the revenue authority/official to have recorded the name of the petitioner as has been held by this Court in its decision given in the case of Ambika Prasad and others v. Kamla Prasad and others, 1972 RD 77. On the aforesaid premises submission is that the judgment of the consolidation authorities are liable to be quashed. 6. In response to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact the sale deed on the basis of which petitioner claims right was not a genuine document rather it was void document on the basis of which no right can be conferred on the petitioner. It is further submitted that non taking of any steps to get the name recorded either on the basis of the sale deed or on the basis of the decree for quite long time is itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against the petitioner about genuineness and validity of the sale deed. It is further submitted that non taking of any steps to get the name recorded either on the basis of the sale deed or on the basis of the decree for quite long time is itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against the petitioner about genuineness and validity of the sale deed. It is further submitted that in fact the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initially dismissed in default and thereafter it appears to have been restored without any notice/opportunity to the respondent and decree has been passed thereafter and thus, petitioner cannot take any advantage of that decree which is admittedly ex parte. It is submitted that on the findings given by the courts below and otherwise also respondents have been able to prove that they have continued in possession and they have paid land revenue and thus they continue with their rights and it is for that reason petitioner while applying for grant of bhumidhari sanad has not deposited requisite amount for getting any right over the land in dispute and he has applied for grant of sanad only in respect of 1/3rd share which he initially had and therefore, on this premises submission is that argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the courts below is not at all justified. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission as has come on the record the Court has perused the judgments, pleadings and the materials as has come on the record. 8. On examination of the matter there appears to be no dispute about the fact that petitioner had filed suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the year 1957 which was decreed on 22.4.1958. A copy of the judgment of the judicial officer which happened to be ex parte has been placed on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. There also appears to be no dispute about the fact that the defendants appeared in the suit and have taken time to file written statement but thereafter for any reason, i.e., on account of dismissal of the suit in default as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and about lack of knowledge of restoration of the suit they could not appear and the suit was decided/decreed ex parte. In view of the aforesaid it is clear that there exist a decree against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner by which name of the predecessor of the respondents was directed to be expunged and name of petitioner was directed to be mutated over 2/3rd share. A perusal of the operative portion of the decree makes it clear that there was direction to the concerned official/staff for doing the needful which appears to have not been done and now blame is being put on the petitioner of not taking any steps for a long time. As there is decree in favour of the petitioner passed by the competent court, this Court is not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that as sale deed, on the basis of which claim was placed by the petitioner was void document, decree passed by competent revenue court should be treated as erroneous. Needless to say that even erroneous judgment/decree and even ex parte decree between parties binds them unless they are challenged in the manner as provided. The rights of the petitioner appears to have been wrongly negatived by the courts below merely on the findings that the decree was ex parte and as mutation court has not allowed application for mutation. Needless to say that the proceedings/order passed in the mutation side are only summary in nature and they cannot take away rights of the parties. So far the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is concerned as it was registered document, neither on the findings given by the courts below nor otherwise also document has been proved to be void and therefore, it was for the respondents to have filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed which is in favour of the petitioner in the competent civil court and thus examination of the validity of the sale deed by discarding the statement of scribe and marginal witnesses, appears to be beyond the competence of the consolidation courts. So far grant of sanad in respect to the land in dispute is concerned as petitioner has not applied for the same even if it is admitted to be correct, that cannot be a ground to negative the petitioner’s claim if otherwise he has succeeded in proving the same. So far grant of sanad in respect to the land in dispute is concerned as petitioner has not applied for the same even if it is admitted to be correct, that cannot be a ground to negative the petitioner’s claim if otherwise he has succeeded in proving the same. There happens to be registered sale deed in petitioner’s favour, which was never challenged in the competent civil court and there happens to be a decree under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act passed by the competent court the effect of which is not to be taken away by the consolidation courts unless it is found that no such suit was filed or defendants was not party therein, the rights as claimed by the petitioner cannot be negatived. In view of the aforesaid discussions this Court is satisfied that the courts below in negativing petitioner’s claim were misdirected and their approach have been whimsical and erroneous, which deserves to be interfered. 9. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgments passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 21.8.1975, 7.11.1974 and 24.9.1974 (Annexures-10, 9 and 8 respectively) are hereby quashed and the claim of the petitioner to the extent of 2/3rd share is hereby accepted.