RIASAT KHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to certain plots of Chak No. 251 situate in village Nanakhera, Pargana Ujhani, District Budaun. The Petitioners' case is that originally the land in dispute belonged to Batool Khan Respondent No. 2 and by a registered sale deed dated 20th April, 1976 the land was transferred in favour of the Petitioners. Accordingly, an application was filed by the Petitioners praying for their names being entered in the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated October 27, 1976 directed the entry of the Petitioners ' name in respect of the land in dispute, in view of this registered sale deed. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. This appeal was decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The view taken by him was that since the sale deed pertained to the entire holding of the transferor and not merely in respect of a part thereof, as such there was no necessity for obtaining the prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. The Respondent No. 2 filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This revision came up for decision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp at Budaun. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 31st March, 1978. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that in view of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act as existing after the amendment made in the said provision by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974, prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would be necessary even if the entire holding was the subject-matter of transfer. It is this judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which the Petitioners have impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition has no merit.

(3.) Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as it existed.before its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 read thus: