(1.) Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as existing at the relevant time, prohibited during consolidation, a tenure-holder from transferring by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof unless permission in writing had previously been obtained by him from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The supposed transfer in favour of the appellants was undeniably in violation thereof. Shelter was sought by the appellants before all the courts below on a general permission granted by the Settlement Officer on 1/12/1964 whereby all sales effected up to the end of 1964 stood permitted in all the notified villages specified therein. This claim of the appellant was rejected by the courts below on account of Rule 16-B of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which provides that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall grant permission referred to in Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) unless for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that the proposed settlement is likely to affect adversely the scheme of consolidation. It was viewed that the orders envisaged under Rule 16-B were individual in nature and the Settlement Officer cannot employ power en masse. That is the reason that the appellants were denied protection of the general permission granted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi. We have heard learned counsel on this aspect of the matter and are unable to conceive any other view because of the safeguards provided in Rule 16-B. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not assume that general permission granted by him would not have the effect of adversely causing affectation in the scheme of consolidation. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the orders of the courts below. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.