JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court is plaintiff in Original Suit No. 141 of 1986 which was filed for cancellation of the sale-deed executed in respect of plot No. 111. On behalf of the defendants an objection was raised qua the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit on the ground that the suit property transferred under the sale-deed was an agricultural holding and the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objection so raised was formulated as issued No. 3 and has been decided as preliminary issue. The trial Court held that the suit as presented was maintainable inasmuch as the Civil Court alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the sale-deed. 2. Not being satisfied the defendants filed Civil Revision Nos. 08 of 1991. The revision has been allowed under the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 7.2.1992 and it has been held that during consolidation operation, mutation has directed on the strength of the sale-deed, the same has become final. Reference has also been made to an application made by the plaintiff’s father before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate giving his consent for mutation of the name of the defendants who were purchasers of the property in question. 3. The Addl. District Judge has held that the sale-deed has been executed willingly and voluntarily without any fraud or misrepresentation. It has, therefore, been held that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. Challenging the order so passed by the Addl. District Judge, counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue pertaining to cancellation of the sale-deed cannot be a subject-matter of consideration during the consolidation proceeding. Any mutation and determination of rights which may have taken place on the strength of the sale-deed during consolidation proceedings will not bar the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed. District Judge, counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue pertaining to cancellation of the sale-deed cannot be a subject-matter of consideration during the consolidation proceeding. Any mutation and determination of rights which may have taken place on the strength of the sale-deed during consolidation proceedings will not bar the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 (1) AWC 290, as well as to the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Smt. Mangli Devi v. Kamlesh Kumar and others, 2004 (2) AWC 1274 , contends that where a plaintiff approaches the Civil Court seeking cancellation of a sale-deed which may be void or voidable, the issue as to whether the name of the plaintiff is recorded or not is not relevant and it is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such a suit. 5. It is stated that in the facts of this case the plaintiff’s allegations were that the sale-deed has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed could be tried by the Civil Courts only. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the present writ petition. The District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in his order dated 7.2.1992 has recorded following findings. (a) Registered sale-deed was executed by the father of the petitioner in respect of property on 12.7.1973 and the plaintiff was one of the attesting witnesses. On the strength of the sale-deed, name of the purchaser defendants was mutated in revenue records and no objection was taken by the father of the plaintiff, who was alive at the relevant time. On the contrary, the father gave his consent for mutation in favour of the purchaser in proceeding on an application made for the purpose in the Court of S.D.M. It has been found that the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been recorded that on the basis of the sale-deed, the defendants have been recorded as Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land in the revenue records. It has been recorded that on the basis of the sale-deed, the defendants have been recorded as Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land in the revenue records. It has been noticed that the sale-deed is being questioned by means of the suit filed in the year 1986 i.e. after 12 to 13 years of the execution of the sale-deed and after the village in question was de-notified under Section 52 of Consolidation of Holdings Ac. It has lastly been recorded that neither the father of the petitioner nor Prakash Narain claimed any right as title in land in question during consolidation proceedings. In view of the judgment in the case of Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 (1) AWC 290, it has been held that the rights of the parties stand determined conclusive during consolidation proceedings and cannot be reopened in suit before the Civil Court or Revenue Court. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Archhey Lal and others v. Bhunai and others, 1980 ALJ NOC 134, for holding that a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed where the purchaser has already been recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue record is barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act. To similar effect is the judgment of this Court in the case of Zafar Khan and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, AIR 1985 SC 39 , challenging the finding so recorded. 7. Counsel for the petitioner challenging the findings so recorded vehemently contended that since the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale-deed Civil Court alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit and the bar of Section 49 of CH Act would not be applicable. He placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 (1) AWC 290, as well as upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, AWC 412, for the proposition that a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale-deed qua an agricultural plot pending in Civil Court shall not abate under Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Reference is also made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ram and another v. Ist Additional District Judge and others, (2001) 3 SCC 24 , wherein it has been held that a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and being in possession can file a suit before the Civil Court for cancellation of sale-deed having been obtained by fraud or impersonation he cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others, (1990) 1 SCC 207 , wherein the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) has been approved. 8. Suffice is to record that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) has specifically laid down as follows: “We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Pyari, has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad, is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect of void document will lie in the revenue Court it does not lay down a good law. Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status and a tenure holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant. A recorded tenure holder having prima facie title in his favour can hardly be directed to approach the revenue Court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to approach the Court of law and in such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the revenue Court.” The same Full Bench in paragraph 21 has further specifically held as below : “21. The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than civil and revenue Courts. The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than civil and revenue Courts. Section 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that any suit pending in the trial Court or in appeal before any appellate Court in which right, title and interest over land is involved will stand abated. In view of the said provision of any appeal, may it be a special appeal, pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court would abate. Adjudication of right, title and interest over ‘land’ by the consolidation authorities is final. Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides for revision of the village map after provisional consolidation Scheme for unit is prepared. Sec. 8-A of the said Act provides for preparation of Statement of Principles, while Sec. 9 provides for issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Section 8 and Section 8-A and issue of notice for inviting objection. Section 9-A provides for disposal of cases relating to claim to land and partition of joint holding. The order passed by the consolidation officer is subject to appellate and revisional jurisdiction. Even if rights are claimed on the basis of void sale-deed or questioned before the consolidation authorities, the consolidation authorities, after recording a finding on the same that it was void sale-deed can determine the rights, title and interest in the land in accordance with law ignoring the said deed on the ground that it was void. The entries are to be corrected by the consolidation authorities themselves and one has not to approach the authorities under U.P. Land Revenue Act after decision by civil or revenue Court to correct the papers in accordance with their judgment and decree. If a document is cancelled by Civil Court then entry is to be made by the registering officer on the copy as provided in Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, which gives seal to the legal ineffectiveness of the said document. But after determination by consolidation authorities the right, title of the parties taking into consideration void document, the entries will be corrected. But after determination by consolidation authorities the right, title of the parties taking into consideration void document, the entries will be corrected. After consolidation operations are over, the question cannot be raised or raked up before any civil or revenue Court thereafter in view of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which puts a bar on the jurisdiction of civil or revenue Court not only to adjudicate such right and title or interest over land adjudicated by consolidation authorities or which could have been raised before them, but was not raised. The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities is thus wider than that of Civil Court and revenue Court.” 9. In view of the legal position as aforesaid, which has since been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bismillah (supra) what logically follows is that all issues of right/title in an agriculture holding should be raised before the consolidation authorities once the village is notified under Section 4 of the CH Act. The father of the petitioner should have therefore claimed before the consolidation authorities that the sale-deed was void document. No such plea, which was available, was raised before the consolidation authorities by the father or by the petitioner himself who was a attesting witness to the sale-deed so executed. This Court holds that rights over the land with reference to the sale-deed in the facts of the stood closed with the de-notification of the village and the suit as filed for cancellation of the sale is barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order of the Consolidation authorities treating the land in dispute to be that the purchaser, cannot be reopened in a suit as filed by the plaintiff. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Jai Singh v. IInd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2001 (4) AWC 2826 , which according to the petitioner holds that a suit for cancellation would lie in Civil Court only. In my opinion, the judgment has no application in the facts of present case inasmuch as it deals with the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act. In my opinion, the judgment has no application in the facts of present case inasmuch as it deals with the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act. As already noticed above the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) has specifically held that the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities in respect of right, title and interest over the agriculture land is much wider than that of revenue Courts and Civil Courts. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. —————