JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 10.4.86 and 15.9.81 passed by respondent No.1 and 2 respectively. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit No.145 of 1979 in the Court of respondent No. 2 for the cancellation of sale deed dated 19.5.76 executed by the wife of respondent No. 4 Smt. Hukumwati in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner also claimed for injunction to restrain respondent No. 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The suit had been filed on the allegation that Khasra No. 228 had been partitioned on 16/12/67 through registered partition deed between Shri Deep Chand, the grand father of the petitioner and Smt. Hukum Devi and Smt. Hukumwati who were co-sharers in the above Khasara. The contention was that even though the property in suit has been partitioned as stated above, Smt. Hukumwati-wife of respondent No.4 had sold her share in Khasara as undivided share. 3. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has sought for cancellation of the sale deed made by Smt. Hukum Devi. The trial court framed six issues and came to the conclusion that the land in question was the agricultural land and, therefore, the revenue court alon could grant the relief claimed for in the relief. 4. On the other hand, the present petitioner claims that the appropriate Court/Forum to decide this issue would be the Civil Court. 5. It was the petitioner’s case before the Trial Court and the plaint that the land in question was not the agricultural land but was within the Municipal limits and, therefore, stood outside the purview of the Consolidation Act. The petitioner’s in paragraph-1 of the plaint contended that the property in dispute is on record as Annexure R.A.-1, which states that Khasara No. 228 village Nurpur, Deoband is within the Municipal limits. The W.S. filed by the respondents is also on record as Annexure R.A.-II, in which, there is no specific denial that the property in dispute was within the Municipal limits. The reply is contained in paragraph-I to the W.S. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the very case of the petitioner was that the land was within the Municipal limits. The reply is contained in paragraph-I to the W.S. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the very case of the petitioner was that the land was within the Municipal limits. Therefore, appropriate remedy was to file a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed, which was either void or fraudulent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that the Revenue Court alone could have jurisdiction on the basis of the reasoning that the property had been joint property and because it was agricultural property, the partition should have been made by the decree of Revenue Court. Against the order of the Trial Court dated 15.9.81, the petitioner filed an appeal and again took an objection that the property was within the Municipal limits and stood outside the purview of the Consolidation Act. It is the petitioner’s contention that this objection as raised by the petitioner was not taken into account by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court ousted the claim of the petitioner on the basis of a notification as has been published under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which has been published under Section 52 of the Act. The notification was published on 15th of January, 1983 i.e., much after the date of filing of the suit which had been filed in 1979. On the date, when the suit was filed, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no notification to include the land in dispute in a consolidation area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 2004 (4) A.W.C. 3175 wherein this Court has held that the civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed fraudulently or wrongly executed by imposter in respect of agricultural land by a recorded tenure holder would be maintainable. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has held that the suit as filed before the Civil Court would be maintainable specifically in view of the Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which declares that relief for cancellation of the sale deed can be granted by the Civil Court only. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has held that the suit as filed before the Civil Court would be maintainable specifically in view of the Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which declares that relief for cancellation of the sale deed can be granted by the Civil Court only. In the case of AIR 2001 SC 1250 also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the appropriate remedy for cancellation of a sale deed would be to file a suit before the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred or ousted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that once the notification was published and the area was declared as consolidation area under Section 2-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the suit was no longer be maintainable and the suit has been rightly abated. 9. I have heard learned counsel for both parties at length. The contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are sound. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where petitioner made allegation that the sale deed had been made fraudulently the only remedy in my opinion, available to the petitioner was to file a civil suit for the cancellation of the alleged fraudulent said sale deed. It was certainly not a matter, which could have been agitated before the Revenue Court. The petitioner has rightly argued that because the land was in the Municipal limits at the time of filing the suit itself, the petitioner could only recourse to filing a suit before the Civil Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the subsequent notification would not affect his right to get the sale deed cancelled and set aside in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as cited above. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that this objection has not been considered and the appellate Court has simply abated the matter on the basis of the notification issued in the year 1993. 11. The appellate order abating the appeal, in my opinion, is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate Court for decision afresh. The matter shall be re-opened by the appellate court immediately upon production of a certified copy of this order. 11. The appellate order abating the appeal, in my opinion, is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate Court for decision afresh. The matter shall be re-opened by the appellate court immediately upon production of a certified copy of this order. The parties shall be heard and the matter shall be disposed of expeditiously without allowing either party any frivolous or unreasonable adjournments. 12. The appellate order dated 10.4.86 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———