JUDGMENT K.S.Garewal, J.:- This petition has been filed by Satya Devi seeking to quash order dated July 27, 2001 passed by Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Annexure P-14) on a petition moved by her against Darshan Kumar, Nirmala Devi and Jagan Nath respondents 3, 4 and 5. 2. Earlier Darshan Kumar had filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 in which he got a favourable order of correction of record, his petition was accepted on April 22, 1993. Later on a minor correction was also made in the said order on July 27, 1993. Satya Devi challenged both these orders. Her petition was dismissed by impugned order which she has challenged in this instant petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Bhajan Singh and others had moved an application before the Director, Consolidation pleading that they got less land than their entitlement. The matter was investigated and on August 25, 1980, 7 Marlas was allotted to Bhajan Singh out of Khasra No.284//11/2. Bhajan Singh sold these 7 Marlas to Darshan Kumar on December 22, 1981 for Rs.20,000/-. Darshan Kumar became the owner and in possession of this plot of land. But when he was served with a notice by Municipal Committee, Sunam he filed a suit to restrain Municipal Committee from demolishing the house which he had constructed on the abovesaid land. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sunam on May 26, 1986 passed a declaratory decree that Darshan Kumar was the owner and in possession of 7 Marlas and the building constructed thereon. The notice of the Municipal Committee was quashed. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, Sangrur before the District Judge, was also dismissed. 4. Coming to the petitioner’s case, she alongwith Nirmala Devi (respondent 4) purchased Khasra No.283//25/2(0-6) in equal shares from Bachna Ram, vide sale deed dated September 12, 1977. In addition to this, she alongwith Nirmala Devi had also jointly purchased a plot from Amrit Lal, vide sale deed dated February 1, 1978. This plot was situated in Khasra No.283//15/2.However, as the plot was located in the abadi area, only boundaries of the plot were mentioned in the sale deed. 5. In addition to this, she alongwith Nirmala Devi had also jointly purchased a plot from Amrit Lal, vide sale deed dated February 1, 1978. This plot was situated in Khasra No.283//15/2.However, as the plot was located in the abadi area, only boundaries of the plot were mentioned in the sale deed. 5. A dispute over the partition arose between Satya Devi and Nirmala Devi which led Satya Devi to file a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from making any construction, the defendants in the suit were Sohan Lal, Nirmala Devi and Darshan Kumar. The dimensions of the plot were given as 260 ft X 29 ft. The trial court granted interim injunction in favour of Satya Devi. Darshan Kumar filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. He then filed civil revision 1244 of 1990 before the High Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Kanungo to act as Local Commissioner, to go to the spot and demarcated the land. This order was passed by the High Court on May 28, 1990, on the basis of an agreement between Darshan Kumar and Satya Devi. The Local Commissioner was to go to the spot and demarcate the area covered by the two sale deeds in favour of Satya Devi. Darshan Kumar and others (defendants in Satya Devi’s suit) had agreed that they would not raise any construction or disturb Satya Devi’s possession over land covered by the two sale deeds. 6. Therefore, the dispute between the parties relates to the location of the two parcels of land purchased by Satya Devi and Nirmala Devi on the basis of these two sale deeds dated September 12, 1977 and February 1, 1978. 7. Satya Devi specifically pleaded in her petition that after the order of the High Court was passed, the Local Commissioner carried out demarcation and submitted his report that land in dispute, described in the head note of the plaint, was covered by the two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff (petitioner herein). It has also been pleaded that Darshan Kumar sought an amendment of his written statement to amend para 2 where he has admitted that he was owner of the land which fell in khasra No.283//15/2 (0-7). The amendment application was dismissed. 8. In this case the parties had purchased small parcels of land in khasra No. 283//11/2. It has also been pleaded that Darshan Kumar sought an amendment of his written statement to amend para 2 where he has admitted that he was owner of the land which fell in khasra No.283//15/2 (0-7). The amendment application was dismissed. 8. In this case the parties had purchased small parcels of land in khasra No. 283//11/2. They are trying to figure out the exact location of their plots after they had raised construction. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of the two sale deeds stands fully justified after the demarcation was carried out by the Kanungo (Local Commissioner). 9. On the other hand the claim of Darshan Kumar is based on the orders obtained from the Director, Consolidation. Darshan Kumar purchased the property from Bhajan Singh, who had apparently been given less land than his entitlement, and whose application had been allowed by the Director, Consolidation in 1979 vide order Annexure P-1. Bhajan Singh and others sold 7 Marlas to Darshan Kumar vide sale deed Annexure P-2. Darshan Kumar failed to defend his claim before the civil court but was not content with this setback. He filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act on October 5, 1992 seeking a correction to the effect that the Consolidation Department had wrongly shown khasra No.284//11/2 (0- 7) as the share of Bhajan Singh, whereas actually it should have been in khasra No. 283//15/2. As Darshan Kumar had constructed a building in Khasra No.283//15/2, the ownership of khasra No.284//11/2 be changed to Jumla Mushtarqa Malkan and in lieu thereof plot measuring 12ft east, 12 ft west, 6 ft south and 5ft north out of khasra No. 283//15/2 be allotted to him and correction be carried out. This application of Darshan Kumar was decided in his favour on April 22, 1993. A minor correction was later made on July 27, 1993. These orders are Annexures P-13 and P-14. These orders were passed in the absence of Satya Devi. Therefore, she was driven to file a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act to defend her possession as the area which was allotted to Darhan Kumar fell in khasra No.283//15/2 (west) in respect of which a civil suit was pending between her and Darshan Kumar. 10. These orders were passed in the absence of Satya Devi. Therefore, she was driven to file a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act to defend her possession as the area which was allotted to Darhan Kumar fell in khasra No.283//15/2 (west) in respect of which a civil suit was pending between her and Darshan Kumar. 10. In the reply filed by Darshan Kumar the plea taken is that the orders Annexures P-12 and P-13 had been earlier challenged by Jagan Nath (Respondent 5) in CWP No. 13935 of 1999 in which Darshan Kumar was respondent 1 and Satya Devi was respondent 3. The petition was dismissed on September 13, 1999. S.L.P. was dismissed on April 10, 2000. The respective orders are Annexures R-3/1 and R-3/2. Therefore, the orders which have been upheld by this Court could not be challenged again. 11. We are unconvinced by the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Darshan Kumar because Darshan Kumar has not been forthright in making submissions and pleading the correct facts. The parties were earlier before this court in civil revision No.1244 of 1990 decided on May 28, 1990 in which case it was agreed between them that the part of land covered by two sale deeds in favour of Satya Devi dated December 11, 1977 and February 1, 1978 be demarcated. It was further agreed that Darshan Kumar shall have no right to make any construction or disturb the possession of Satya Devi, over the land covered by these two sale deeds. This order and the subsequent demarcation is the very basis of the petitioner’s case and indeed contrary to the pleadings of Darshan Kumar before the Consolidation Authorities. Satya Devi’s case was not considered by the Consolidation Authorities when orders Annexures P-12 and P-13 were passed. Satya Devi was driven to file a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. The Director Consolidation passed a detailed order on July 27, 2001 which has been impugned in this petition. 12. It is unfortunate that the civil court and the Director Consolidation were at cross purposes. Satya Devi purchased two parcels of land for valuable consideration on the basis of two sale deeds. When a cloud was cast on her title, and her possession was threatened, she approached Civil Court and obtained an interim injunction. 12. It is unfortunate that the civil court and the Director Consolidation were at cross purposes. Satya Devi purchased two parcels of land for valuable consideration on the basis of two sale deeds. When a cloud was cast on her title, and her possession was threatened, she approached Civil Court and obtained an interim injunction. The matter came up before this Court in revision and demarcation was ordered. The demarcation showed that Satya Devi had correctly pleaded that she was in possession of land which she had purchased. This consequently meant that Darshan Kumar was the defaulting party who was trying to capture something which he did not own. Darshan Kumar was helped by the Consolidation Authorities in his design. We feel that the decision of the civil court must prevail over the order of Director, Consolidation. It may be that the petitioner’s name was not recorded in the revenue record, therefore, she was not issued any notice of the proceedings by Director, Consolidation. As the civil court had decided the civil suit, that decision must prevail, irrespective of what right of Darshan Kumar enjoyed under the Consolidation Act, which he claims has been violated and which he is seeking to enforce. 13. We are consequently of the view that orders Annexures P-12, P-13 as well as order Annexure P-14 deserve to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The possession of the petitioner is based on the two sale deeds in her favour and the demarcation report of the Local Commissioner. 14. If Darshan Kumar still has any grievance regarding not being given area to which he was entitled to, he shall be at liberty to approach the Consolidation Authorities but the possession of Satya Devi shall be protected for all times. The petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be entitled to costs. ----------------