Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 247459 of 2006 in Second Appeal No. 1540 of 1982.

2. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required to be obtained in terms of Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') before sale of the plot No. 386 (re-numbered as plot No. 348) in consolidation proceedings and hereinafter referred to as the suit property.

3. The admitted facts are that the suit property was land used as 'Abadi' and was declared 'Chakout' (meaning out of the consolidation scheme) after the preliminary survey was conducted. Four brothers were co-tenure holders of the land in dispute. One brother executed a sale deed of his 1/4^th share in favour of Respondents-Defendants. The remaining three brothers filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Respondents-Defendants alleging that the sale is void since no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as envisaged Under Section 5(c)(ii) was obtained. They also claimed that they are in possession of the suit property and the Respondents-Defendants are trying to make construction on the land and had illegally constructed a 'kothari' on the suit property. The Respondents-Defendants claimed they were in possession but denied that they had raised any structure and submitted that since the land was not subject to the consolidation scheme, no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was necessary. The suit was dismissed by the trial court mainly on the ground that no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required since the land was outside the consolidation scheme. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal. The first appellate court allowed the appeal holding that Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act was applicable and since no permission in terms thereof had been obtained, the sale deed was void and ineffective. Thereafter, the Defendants filed second appeal which was dismissed.

4. Thereafter, review petition was filed mainly on the ground that since the land in dispute did not form part of the consolidation scheme, permis........