14. A joint reading of Sub-section 2 of Section 5 and Section 9-A leave no doubt that once consolidation operation starts on the publication of notification under Section 4, then, any right, interest and title in respect of any land which is the subject matter of such consolidation operations, is to be determined by the Consolidation Authorities and none else, however, as far as cancellation of deeds are concerned it is the prerogative of the Civil Courts and Consolidation Authorities do not have any jurisdiction to cancel instruments i.e. sale deed or gift deed etc., but, this does not mean that in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) the Consolidation Courts can not take into consideration such sale deeds etc. for the purposes of determination of rights, title and interest of the parties in the land in question. This question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court way back in 1970 itself in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube's case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court took note of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Jagarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pande, 1969 All LJ 768, wherein, the question whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, which was pending on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act abates under Section 5(2) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities to go into questions relating to the validity of the sale deeds, gift deeds and wills also fell for consideration. The Supreme Court after noticing the aforesaid judgment found therein a fairly comprehensive discussion of the relevant authorities of the Allahabad High Court, the preponderating weight of which was cast in favour of view that question relating to the validity of sale deeds, gift deeds and wills could be gone into in proceedings before the Consolidation authorities because such questions naturally and necessarily arose and had to be decided in the course of adjudication on rights or interests in land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The Supreme Court opined that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly and partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any Court or authority and one where it has to be actually set-aside before it can cease to have legal effect. It held that an alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of excess of power, invalid. It further held that an adjudication on the effect of such purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to the rights or interests in land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interest in land, to declare such documents
