IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 817 of 2002 (M/S) Sri Kailash son of late Bharta resident of village Brahampur, post office – Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …………. Petitioner. Versus Up Sanchalak Chakbandi / Additional Collector, Haridwar at Roorkee and three others. ……………. Respondents. Date: - 9.1.2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service there is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ for quashing the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation / Additional Collector, Haridwar Camp, Roorkee, order dated 30.11.1999 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, Roorkee, and order dated 20.10.1993 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer (Annexure Nos. 6,4 and 2 to the writ petition respectively). According to the petitioner, briefly stated the facts giving rise to the writ petition are that he never executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Gandhi-respondent no. 4. Being a clever lady, she obtained thumb impression on sale deed. The petitioner has also filed the suit (Suit No. 340 of 1992) for cancellation of the sale deed in the court of Munsiff, Roorkee. The respondent has filed application under Section 9-A before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording his name in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed. The mutation was made in her favour by way of compromise on the basis of sale deed. According to the petitioner, he never entered into compromise. The order of mutation was also passed with collusion of the Lekhpal and Kanoongo. The appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee by the petitioner. After hearing of the parties, the appeal was dismissed on 30.11.1999. Further aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same grounds. The revision was also dismissed on 16.9.2002. Hence, this writ petition. The only controversy to be decided before this Court is whether the petitioner had executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Gandhi-respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, he himself has stated in the writ petition that Smt. Gandhi obtained thumb impression by fraud on the sale deed. He never received consideration for which he filed civil suit. According to him, the appeal is pending against the Judgment and decree of Munsiff Court. The appeal is in continuation of the suit. It is well settled that the Consolidation Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed. On account of fraud or misrepresentation, if the sale deed is void ab initio in that event the Consolidation Court has a right to ignore the sale deed. If the petitioner succeeds to get the sale deed cancelled through civil court then automatically after the cancellation of the sale deed the name of the respondent no. 4 may be expunged thereafter. Since the mutation was ordered by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by way of compromise no effort was made before the Appellate Court to adduce the evidence that the compromise was forged one. The name was entered on the basis of sale deed and unless and until the sale deed is cancelled by the Civil Court, the entry will remain in the name of the respondent no.4 as ordered by the Trial Court. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the pending applications disposed of accordingly. Dated: 9.1.2009 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY