JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Tushar Gupta for the petitioners. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 4.8.2006, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 28.3.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.9.2015 passed in the title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. On the basis of sale deed dated 16.3.1990 Bharat Yatra Trust (respondent-4) filed an objection for recording its name over the land in dispute. It has been stated that Bhragunath Singh, recorded tenure-holder, had executed a sale deed in its favour. It is alleged that in this case initially Bhragunath Singh did not contest the matter. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer got his statement recorded by issuing Advocate Commissioner on 30.4.2006 and thereafter by the order dated 4.8.2006 directed for recording the name of respondent-4 over the land in dispute. Bhragunath Singh filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. A copy of memorandum of appeal has been filed as 5. Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In paragraph-3 of the memorandum of appeal, it has been stated that no notice of the case was ever served upon him and the order dated 4.8.2006 was ex parte against him. In paragraph-5 of the memorandum of appeal, it has been stated that the sale deed was obtained by committing fraud and inadequate sale consideration was paid to him. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and it was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 28.3.2013. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.9.2015. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. So far as the orders of the consolidation authorities are concerned, they have relied upon the statement of Bhragunath Singh executant of the sale deed, who was the recorded tenure holder. In the memorandum of appeal although it has been stated that order was passed ex parte without issuing any notice to him and recording of statement has been denied. But in paragraph-5 of the memorandum of appeal it has been stated that sale deed was obtained by committing fraud and on payment of low sale consideration. Thus, in fact, execution of sale deed was not denied. 7. But in paragraph-5 of the memorandum of appeal it has been stated that sale deed was obtained by committing fraud and on payment of low sale consideration. Thus, in fact, execution of sale deed was not denied. 7. So far as the fraud is concerned, it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Nath vs. Munna, 1976 RD 220 that so far as the fraud is concerned unless fraud is proved the sale deed is a voidable document and the consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to ignore it till it is cancelled by a competent court. Thus, consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to ignore it. The issue relating to fraud can only be adjudicated by the civil court and not by the consolidation authorities. Thus, so longs as sale deed is not cancelled, it cannot be ignored by the consolidation authorities. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioners, if so advised, may get their remedy before the civil court. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.