JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 4 and learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 and perused the record. 2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order dated 25.1.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, arising out of order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity, 'U.P.C.H. Act'). 3. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present writ petition is arising out of objection dated 15.6.2009 under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act filed on behalf of the present petitioner with a prayer that plot No. 245 area 1.0790 hectare, plot No. 260 area 1.0030 hectare and plot No. 289 area 1.6190 hectare situated in village Ghar, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat may be kept out of consolidation operation on the ground that with respect to these plots, civil suit is going on between the parties. It is averred in the application that property belongs to Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner), who was of unsound mind, and taking benefits of his mental illness respondent No. 4 has got sale deed dated 8.9.2011 executed in his favour. On the basis thereof, he got his name mutated in the revenue record. Objection goes on alleging that Shiv Lal had filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 573 of 2011 against Dharmendra Kumar (respondent No. 4), which is pending consideration. Civil Court has granted interim order dated 19.9.2011 for maintaining status quo on spot. Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection moved by the petitioner, vide its order dated 15.7.2021 (annexure No. 3), with an observation that plot No. 260 is already out of consolidation operation and exchange value of plot No. 289 and 245 and their surrounding plots has already been fixed in the consolidation operation, therefore, prayer, to keep the aforesaid plots out of consolidation operation, cannot be accepted. Order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer was affirmed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide its order dated 25.1.2022 and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its order dated 20.4.2022, which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for injunction has been filed against the private respondent No. 4 and interim order is granted in the aforesaid suit for maintaining status quo over the land in question, therefore, consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to continue any type of proceeding relating to the subject matter of the suit. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs. District Judge, Mau and others, reported in 1999 (1) AWC 152 . By interpreting the provisions as enunciated under Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that the consolidation courts have got no jurisdiction to examine the legality and validity of the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the respondent No. 4. It is further submitted that the pendency of the civil suit bars the jurisdiction of the consolidation court to examine the right and title of the parties over the land in question. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the consolidation courts have passed the order without application of mind and without considering the provisions of law, as enunciated under the U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, orders impugned are illegal and suffers from infirmities and, therefore, are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 contended that Shiv Lal had executed the registered sale deed dated 8.9.2011, in a sound state of mind, in favour of the respondent No. 4, which still stands unchallenged. Civil Suit i.e. Original Suit No. 573 of 2011 has been filed only for the permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent No. 4 with prayer not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff, which is evident from the plaint annexed in the writ petition, therefore, right and title of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of the registered sale deed cannot be questioned. The name of the respondent No. 4 is already recorded in the revenue record by the orders passed by revenue authorities and the same was affirmed by this Court, vide its order dated 23.10.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 58029 of 2013, which became final between the parties. It has further been contended that in the basic consolidation record, name of the respondent No. 4 was recorded, therefore, consolidation authorities have rightly fixed the exchange value of the aforesaid plot in the name of respondent No. 4. Interim order dated 19.9.2011 passed by the civil court was a time bound interim order only upto 10.11.2011 but, thereafter, there is nothing on record to show as to what has happened after 10.11.2011. Supporting the impugned orders passed by consolidation courts, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 contended that the legality and validity of the sale deed cannot be questioned at this juncture and there is no ambiguity, perversity or infirmity in the said orders so as to warrant any indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 6. Carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Question for consideration in the instant matter lies in a narrow compass as to whether the consolidation authorities have got jurisdiction to fix the exchange value of the plots in question and carve out chak in the name of respondent No. 4 (recorded tenure holder) over there, which is a subject matter of civil suit. 8. Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act denotes the provision for gazette notification of any particular area for the purposes of the consolidation operation. The effect of the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, as enunciated under Section 5 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, denotes the abatement of proceedings regarding the correction of record & civil suit and proceeding, in respect of declaration of right, title or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceeding can or ought to be taken under the U.P.C.H. Act. For ready reference relevant portion of Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted hereinunder - Section 5 (2)-“Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely - (a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated : Provided … … … … ... … … … Provided … … … … ... … … … (b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.] Explanation- … … … … ... … … … ” 9. Conjoint reading of sub-clause (a) & (b) of clause 2 of Section 5 evince the protection to the rights of the persons, who are affected owing to abatement of suit or proceeding, as enumerated under sub-clause (a), to agitate their right or interest under the relevant provisions of U.P.C.H. Act and the rules made thereunder. 10. In this respect, provisions as enunciated under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act, though not much relevant in facts of the present writ petition, is also required to be entertained, which creates a bar to the civil court jurisdiction with respect to the right and title of the parties over the land in question, which falls within the ambit of notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Drawing distinction between Section 5 (2) and Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, in case of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary (supra), this Court explained that both the sections operates with the same object but deals with two distinct and different fields, but in respect of same class of cases. 11. Drawing distinction between Section 5 (2) and Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, in case of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary (supra), this Court explained that both the sections operates with the same object but deals with two distinct and different fields, but in respect of same class of cases. While section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act deals with the pending cases, Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act deals with the institution of cases. Both the sections are complimentary to each other for the self same object in two different situations. Inasmuch as Section 5 freezes pendency of cases while section 49 forbids institution of fresh cases of the class of cases enumerated therein which are common in both. Both the sections are part of the same scheme. 12. Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Ram Padarth Vs. Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, reported in 1989 RD 21 has diluted the distinction between the void and voidable document with respect to the filing a suit for cancellation of document before the appropriate Court i.e. Civil Court or Revenue Court. It is held that the person, who is 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 the void document. Meaning thereby, a person who is not a recorded tenure holder can take a shelter in the revenue court/consolidation court for establishing his/her right and title over the property in dispute. The relevant paragraph of the verdict given by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) is reproduced hereunder: … ………………… … … … ………………… … … … … … … … … … … … ... The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than civil and revenue court. 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 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. In view of the said provision 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. Section 8A of the said Act provides for preparation of principles, while section 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 infectiveness 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. 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. The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities is thus wider than that of civil court and revenue court. (extracted paragraph from page 26 & 28) … ………………… … … … ………………… … … … ………………… … … We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari (1982 AlR 517 (HC LB) has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench Case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri ( 1981 AWC 469 ) 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 as 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. (extracted paragraph from page 31) 13. Judgment of Ram Padarath (supra) subsequently relied upon in several decisions of Hon'ble Court. In the matter of Sri Ram and another Vs. 1st Additional District Judge and others, reported in 2001 (92) RD 241 , Hon'ble Supreme Court succinctly held that normally tenure holder having prima facie title and in possession, files a suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation, cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court. But the position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil Court on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder: 6. But the position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil Court on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder: 6. On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder, having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court-reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession. 14. Even in the matter where co-tenancy has been claimed on the ground that collateral descendant was recorded in the representative capacity, Hon’ble Supreme Court has normally held in the case of Sita Ram Vs. Chhota Bhondey and others, reported in 1990 RD 439 that such claims falls within the ambit of Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herebelow: “In the instant case respondent No. 1 was claiming an interest in the land lying in the area covered by notification issued under section 4 (2) on the basis that he is the son of Chhota, brother of Nanha and that the lands were recorded in the name of Nanha in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and his other brothers. This claim which fell within the ambit of Section 5 (2) had to be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. This claim which fell within the ambit of Section 5 (2) had to be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. Since it was a matter falling within the scope of adjudicatory functions assigned to the consolidation authorities under the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in respect of the said matter was expressly barred by Section 49 of the Act and the suit of the appellant was rightly dismissed on that ground.” 15. In another case of Smt. Dulari Devi Vs. Janardan Singh and others, reported in 1990 RD 193 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where sale deed has been obtained fraudulently by any person, suit for its cancellation or right of the vendor, is not maintainable before the civil court by reason of bar contained in the U.P.C.H. Act. 16. In another case of Narendra Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan and others reported in 2006 (RD) 69, Hon'ble Supreme Court has discarded the claim of a person being a joint owner of the property in question on the ground that he had to approach before the competent authority under the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act. 17. It is admitted, in the matter in hand, that respondent No. 4 was recorded tenure holder of the land in question on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 8.9.2011 said to have been executed by Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner). Mutation order dated 1.4.2013 passed by the Naib Tehsildar was confirmed by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 19.7.2013. Ultimately, proceedings was culminated in favour of the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 23.10.2013 passed by High Court in writ petition No. 58029 of 2013, which became final between the parties. It appears that Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner) had filed a suit dated 19.9.2011 for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 4 and Ram Natha Yadav. A copy of the plaint is annexed in the petitioner as annexure No. 4 (page 62 to 69). Perusal of plaint reveals that it was filed for the permanent injunction not for the cancellation of the sale deed, though before filing suit sale deed had already been executed. Interim order dated 19.9.2011 was granted for a limited period for maintaining status quo on spot, that too, up to only the next date fixed i.e. 10.10.2011. Perusal of plaint reveals that it was filed for the permanent injunction not for the cancellation of the sale deed, though before filing suit sale deed had already been executed. Interim order dated 19.9.2011 was granted for a limited period for maintaining status quo on spot, that too, up to only the next date fixed i.e. 10.10.2011. There is nothing on record to show as to what happened to the interim injunction application or as to whether stay order was extended or not. 18. It appears that the name of the respondent No. 4 was recorded in the basic consolidation record and, accordingly, exchange value of the plot in question was fixed by the Consolidation Officer and chak was carved out in his name. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the basis of report submitted by Consolidator, has given a categorical finding that in basic year Khatauni 1422 to 1427 Fasli, name of Dharmendra Kumar, respondent No. 4 was recorded over Khata No. 99, which consists of plot No. 245 and 260. Apart from that, name of Vishal and Dharmendra Kumar was recorded over Khata No. 269, which consists of plot No. 289. It is further observed that plot No. 260 was kept out of consolidation proceeding but exchange value of plots No. 245 and 289 was fixed in the consolidation operation. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that the exchange value of the aforesaid plots No. 245 and 289 has rightly been fixed by the consolidation authorities, therefore, at this juncture, it would not be befitting to keep them out of consolidation operation. It has further been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order passed by the competent court qua plots No. 245 and 289 would be adhered to in future. 19. Counsel for the respondents has hammered his submissions on the basis of the observation made by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhari (supra) in which Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been dealt with and it has been held that suit for the injunction does not come within the ambit of U.P.C.H. Act. The facts of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhari (supra) are different and same is not fully applicable in the instant matter. The facts of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhari (supra) are different and same is not fully applicable in the instant matter. Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Ram Padarath (supra) lay all the controversy at rest qua jurisdiction of civil or revenue/consolidation court. 20. Having regard to the judgments, as discussed above, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the record on Board, this Court is of considered opinion that all the three consolidation courts have rightly decided the matter discarding the prayer of the petitioners to keep the plots in question out of consolidation operation. Once the village is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the person, who is recorded in the basic consolidation record cannot be denied from his valuable rights over the property in question unless the genuineness of entry and his right and title is challenged under the relevant provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. In this eventuality, consolidation authority are competent to examine the right and title of the parties with respect to the land in question, which is covered by notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, consequence of such notification has to follow as enunciated under Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act. 21. In this conspectus as above, learned counsel for the petitioner fails to substantiate his submission in assailing the impugned orders passed by three consolidation courts whereby prayer made by the petitioner to keep the plot No. 245 and 289 out of consolidation operation has been denied. There is no illegality, ambiguity and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by all the three consolidation courts,which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the cost.