PANCHAM Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. L. Yadav, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 6th May, 1991 and 18th June, 1993, passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE portrayal of the essential facts are that Chak No. 81 was recorded in the name of petitioners. It appears that written permission of Budhan and THEre after it was recorded in the name of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to make the transfer of one-third portion of Chak No. 81 was applied for by the petitioner and the said permission was granted by the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) and thereafter a sale-deed dated 21st December, 1982 was executed in favour of respondent No. 4, Mannu, who moved an application for mutation of his name which was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the permis sion, to make the transfer of one-third portion of Chak No. 81 was hit by the provisions of Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), inasmuch as no part of a Chak can be transferred and such transfer of one third portion of Chak No. 81 is not covered by the expression "holding or any part there. " In any case, permission under the aforesaid provision must have been sought for the entire Chak. THE case of the petitioner was negatived by the impugned orders, inasumch as the Consolidation Officer decided the case against the petitioner and that order was maintained in appeal under the impugned order dated 6th May, 1991 and the petitioner's revision under Section 48 of the Act met the same fate.