JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri H.V. Shastri, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition and Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this petition is the judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer by which petitioner’s objection claiming rights on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 15.7.1981 has been rejected. 3. As there is no dispute about certain facts, they are to be summarised. 4. Notification to start consolidation proceeding is said to have been issued on 27.6.1981. Petitioner claims right in respect to his share on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Pal in his favour on 15.7.1981. Consolidation Officer rejected objection solely on the ground that as sale-deed is after notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and therefore, that is void. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner also failed and thus this writ petition. 5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act was never published in the village/unit and therefore, merely on account of notification under Section 4(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, sale-deed cannot be treated to be void and thus the Court below in rejecting petitioner’s claim solely on that ground has committed a manifest error. In support of his submission learned Advocate placed reliance on the judgments reported in 2007(5) ADJ 56 and 2007(5) ADJ 48. 6. In response to the aforesaid, Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate submits that after publication of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act any transaction being void, all the three Courts have rightly concluded that sale-deed being void, petitioner is not entitled to get his claim accepted. Submission is that notification was issued on 27.6.1981 and sale-deed is of 15.7.1981 and therefore, to the rejection of the claim of petitioner no exception can be taken. 7. In view of the aforesaid this Court has examined the matter. 8. There cannot be any quarrel that after notification about consolidation proceeding under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act any transaction is to take place after permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation but at the same time Court will have to examine the provisions of Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act carefully keeping in mind the fact of the present case. Here is the situation where sale-deed is dated 15.7.1981. Here is the situation where sale-deed is dated 15.7.1981. Copy of notification dated 27.6.1981 has been luckily brought on record by the respondent side by filing the same in the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the notification makes it clear that this was issued under the provisions of Section 4(A) of U.P.C.H. Act which speaks about opinion of the Government about bringing the village again under consolidation operation if notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act has already been issued. Thus here is the case where the State Government was of the opinion that village is again to be brought under consolidation operation and for that purpose notification under Section 4(A) of the U.P.C.H. Act was issued. This kind of notification issued under Section 4(A) of U.P.C.H. Act is to be treated at par to the notification under Section 4(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, there is no dispute about the fact that notification under Section 4(1) of U.P.C.H. Act stood issued on 27.6.1981. On a perusal Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act it is clear that various consequences, which are mentioned in Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act they are to take place on notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, it is clear that in the present case there was no notification before 15.7.1981 under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. This being the situation sale-deed for technical reason as said in the impugned order cannot be said to be void. If there is challenge to the deed, otherwise on the merits that is to be examined on merits in the light of oral and documentary evidence. As all the three Courts solely on the ground that sale-deed is after notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act treated it to be void, this Court is to intervene for the reasons given above. 9. In addition it is to be mentioned here that it is stated in the writ petition that notification issued on 27.6.1981 was under Section 4(1) of U.P.C.H. Act to which in the counter-affidavit there is no specific denial. Besides the aforesaid, it has not been established that notification in question was never published in the unit and therefore, that being the requirement in law nobody is supposed to be aware about notification under Section 4(1) of U.P.C.H. Act so as to either restrain himself from executing sale-deed or to enable the purchaser to get permission, as required. Besides the aforesaid, it has not been established that notification in question was never published in the unit and therefore, that being the requirement in law nobody is supposed to be aware about notification under Section 4(1) of U.P.C.H. Act so as to either restrain himself from executing sale-deed or to enable the purchaser to get permission, as required. Thus for these added reasons given this Court is of the view that contention of the respondent is to be repelled. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments of all the three Courts are hereby set aside. The matter is directed to be revived at the level of Consolidation Officer who is to decide claim of the parties on merits in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of evidence and hearing. Consolidation Officer will ensure that the time is not consumed for no justification and with all expedition matter is to be finally decided. ————