KRIPASHANKER Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate raises a short question as to whether a transfer by way of sale of gift in contravention of S. 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is void or voidable to the extent of area in excess of the limit of 12 1/2 acres prescribed therein

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass and are these. One Basant, resident of Gursandi village, since deceased, was the Bhumidhar of several plots of land comprised in two Khatas bearing Nos. 14 and 78 in villages Gursandi and Saraiya, District Mirzapur. He executed a registered gift deed on Dec. 19, 1964 in favour of the appellant in respect of the plots comprised in the said two Khatas but died before the mutation could be effected in the name of the appellant in the Revenue records. During the Consolidation proceedings that were initiated under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the two villages having come under the operation of consolidation of holdings scheme, the appellant applied for mutation in his name in respect of the plots covered by the Gift Deed. Objections were filed by several persons under S. 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming different rights in or over some of the plots gifted to the appellant. The principal objector was the Gaon Sabha of Gursandi Village, which body in its objections filed on March 28, 1966 contended that the Gift Deed in favour of the appellant contravened Section 154 of the Act because as a result of it the appellant had become entitled to an area of more than 12 1/2 acres, that the entire Gift Deed was, therefore, void, that no mutation could be ordered in favour of the appellant and that the appellant was liable to be ejected from the said lands to which the Gaon Sabha had become entitled under S. 163 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer heard the mutation application of the appellant and the various objections filed under Sec. 9 together; in respect of some of the plots he upheld the claims of some of the objectors but negatived the contention of the Gaon Sabha that the entire Gift Deed was void and he allowed mutation to be effected in favour of the appellant on the basis of the Gift Deed in respect of the remaining plots after excluding those over which claims of others had been upheld by him.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the Consolidation Officer's order dated March 31, 1956, the appellant as well as the Gaon Sabha preferred appeals to the Settlement Officer, the former being against the claims of certain objectors that had been upheld by the Consolidation Officer while the latter being against the order directing mutation being made in appellant's favour in respect of certain plots on the basis of the Gift Deed. The Settlement Officer upheld the contention of the Gaon Sabha that the Gift Deed in favour of the appellant being in contravention of S. 154 of the Act was void and the transferee was liable to be ejected from the lands at the instance of Gaon Sabha under S. 163 of the Act; in that view of the matter he allowed the appeal of the Gaon Sabha and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Against the order dated Aug. 4, 1967 of the Settlement Officer, the appellant preferred a revisional application to the Director of Consolidation who, confirmed the view of the Settlement Officer and dismissed the revisional application November 22, 1967. The appellant challenged the view taken by the Settlement Officer as well as the Director of Consolidation before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4389 of 1967 under Art. 226 of the Constitution but the High Court summarily dismissed the Writ Petn. on 22-12-1967. It is against this decision of the High Court that the appellant has come to this Court in appeal.