The respondents defendants claimed they were in possession but denied that they had raised any structure and submitted that since the land was number subject to the companysolidation scheme, numberpermission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was necessary.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
The appellants challenge the impugned judgment on two grounds.
One brother executed a sale deed of his 1/4 th share in favour of respondents defendants.
The first appellate companyrt allowed the appeal holding that Section 5 c ii of the Act was applicable and since numberpermission in terms thereof had been obtained, the sale deed was void and ineffective.
386 Date 2017.08.11 122423 IST Reason re numbered as plot No.
The admitted facts are that the suit property was land used as Abadi and was declared Chakout meaning out of the companysolidation scheme after the preliminary survey was companyducted.
Thereafter, review petition was filed mainly on the ground that since the land in dispute did number form part of the companysolidation scheme, permission under Section 5 c ii of the Act was number required.
They also claimed that they are in possession of the suit property and the respondents defendants are trying to make companystruction on the land and had illegally companystructed a kothari on the suit property.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt mainly on the ground that numberpermission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was required since the land was outside the companysolidation scheme.
Four brothers were companytenure holders of the land in dispute.
The remaining three brothers filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents defendants alleging that the sale is void since numberpermission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as envisaged under Section 5 c ii was obtained.
348 in companysolidation proceedings and hereinafter referred to as the suit property.
Review Application No.247459 of 2006 in Second Appeal No.
1540 of 1982.
The review petition and appeal were allowed by the impugned order.
Thereafter, the defendants filed second appeal which was dismissed.
The main issue which arises for companysideration 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR of Holdings Act for short the Act before sale of the plot No.
Deepak Gupta, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc.
