JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Shri R.S.Tewari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 on caveat. 4. Under challenge is the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the D.D.C., Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents, has been allowed and the order of remand passed by the S.O.C. has been set aside. 5. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition, are being noticed hereinafter. a. The disputed property in question i.e. plot no.1238 belonged to one Shri Amar Pal. b. Amar Pal had executed a sale deed dated 16.6.1999 through his Power of Attorney holder in favour of private respondent no.3. Subsequently, Amar Pal executed another sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner namely Kamal Kishore Srivastava on 23.7.1999. (c). Apparently, this dispute was escalated once Kamal Kishore Srivastava who was claiming rights on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.7.1999 sought his mutation whereas the private respondent no.3 claiming rights on the basis of sale deed dated 16.6.1999 also claimed mutation in proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (d). The parties have been contesting the matter and this is the third round of litigation. Initially, the mutation order was passed on 7.8.1999 which was assailed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by filing an appeal before the S.O.C. The same came to be allowed ex parte whereafter the private respondents moved an application for recall which was allowed. Upon this order of remand, the matter was first taken up before the D.D.C. which did not find favour and the matter was remitted once again to the court of C.O. to decide the controversy afresh. In the second stage, again the orders were passed against which the present petitioners preferred a revision wherein by making certain observations, the matter was remitted to the consolidation officer to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made by the court of D.D.C. (e). In the second stage, again the orders were passed against which the present petitioners preferred a revision wherein by making certain observations, the matter was remitted to the consolidation officer to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made by the court of D.D.C. (e). Once again the matter was reconsidered and the C.O. once again came to the conclusion that the initial order dated 7.8.1999 in favour of the private respondents, was appropriate against which an appeal was filed which was allowed and the matter was remanded against which the private respondents preferred a revision which came to be allowed affirming the order passed by the C.O. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, Shri Prem Chandra Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the order of C.O. was patently illegal inasmuch as certain observations were made by the D.D.C. while remanding the matter and that order had to be complied with but without making consideration of the order of remand, the C.O. has passed the order which is illegal. He has also pointed out that the issue whether Amar Pal, the original tenure holder, had appeared and given his affidavit that he concurred with the sale deed executed by him in favour of the private respondents dated 16.6.1999 ought to have been considered in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. Whether the original tenure holder namely Amar Pal had received sale consideration was to be adjudicated as well as the fact whether the sale deed in favour of the private respondents dated 16.6.1999 executed on the basis of the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by Amar Pal in favour of the husband of private respondent no.3 and whether this transaction was valid in law, ought to have been considered. It is urged that these issues were not taken note of by the Consolidation Officer while affirming the earlier order dated 7.8.1999. Consequently the order passed by the C.O. was patently illegal. In the aforesaid circumstances, these issues were to be considered afresh, hence the order of D.D.C. was bad in the eyes of law as the D.D.C. should not have intervened with the order of S.O.C. and by allowing the revision the order of the D.D.C. has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, these issues were to be considered afresh, hence the order of D.D.C. was bad in the eyes of law as the D.D.C. should not have intervened with the order of S.O.C. and by allowing the revision the order of the D.D.C. has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice. 7. Shri R.S.Tiwari learned counsel for the private respondent nos.3 and 4 has submitted that in light of the undisputed fact that the Amar Pal was recorded tenure holder and he had executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondent no.3 on 16.6.1999 which was never challenged by Amar Pal in his life time either on the ground that the said sale deed was fraudulent nor on the ground that he has not received any sale consideration. 8. It is thus, urged that once the original tenure holder has not denied the title or called in question the sale deed dated 16.6.1999. The petitioners (through their predecessor in interest ) have no locus standi to raise any such objections. 9. It is further urged that the petitioners have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed which is engaging the attention of the civil court but the fact remains that neither Amar Pal ever challenged the sale deed moreover Amar Pal had also appeared before the court of the Consolidation Officer and gave his affidavit that he concurred with the sale deed executed in favour of the private respondent no.3 and rather the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was not valid. He also denied filing of the appeal which was instituted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on behalf of Amar Pal. 10. It is urged that this aspect has been elaborately dealt with and noticed by the Consolidation Officer and these are pure findings of facts which are not disputed nor could be shown to be perverse and for the said reasons, the petition stands concluded by findings of facts, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Certain facts which are admitted in between the parties are that Amar Pal was the recorded tenure holder. 11. The court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Certain facts which are admitted in between the parties are that Amar Pal was the recorded tenure holder. It is also undisputed that Amar Pal has executed sale deed through his Power of Attorney holder i.e. respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.3 (who is the wife of Power of Attorney Holder of respondent no.4). Even assuming if the said sale deed was executed with certain oblique motives or design, then in such a situation, the best person who could have assailed the said sale deed ought to have taken objections against it and this could have been the original owner namely Amar Pal. It is also not disputed that Amar Pal in his life time did not file any suit or called in question the sale deed dated 16.6.1999 nor the Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of respondent no.4 dated 7.7.1997. 12. It may be that Amar Pal may have executed a subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioners but prima facie the fact remains that the subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioners in itself does not get legal or judicial acceptance for the reason that once Amar Pal had already alienated his rights, nothing remained with him to transfer to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if the points of remand as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners is seen, it would indicate that the burden still was on the petitioners to indicate as to how any prejudice has been caused which made the sale deed dated 16.6.1999 executed prior in point of time, prima facie erroneous. 14. At this stage, this court is also conscious of the fact that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed by the petitioners which is engaging the attention of the competent civil court. 15. In case if any detailed finding is given by this Court, that may hamper the rights of the parties who are contesting their title before the civil court. 15. In case if any detailed finding is given by this Court, that may hamper the rights of the parties who are contesting their title before the civil court. Hence, this court consciously refrains from giving any conclusive findings rather the court has tentatively having examined the matter in the aforesaid factual matrix and this court finds that prima facie the issue as to whether the sale deed was valid or not is to be seen in the proceedings pending before the civil court. 16. Suffice to say that the reasonings by the C.O. as well as D.D.C. do not suffer from any palpable error, which may persuade this court to entertain the petition. Moreover, the consolidation authorities do not have the right to cancel an instrument, hence in case of challenge to the sale deed which is pending before the civil court, the consolidation authorities were well within their right to treat the document in question on the basis of admitted facts which has been done by the C.O. and the D.D.C. and to that extend the S.O.C. was not justified in remanding the matter on the given set of admitted facts as noticed above. {See Salak Ram and others Vs. D.D.C. Shravasti and others : 2025(1) A.D.J. 290 (LB)} 17. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage and it is once again clarified that all the issues which have been raised in the civil court shall be considered in the light of the evidence led by the respective parties before court concerned.