GULATI, J. :- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter, referred to as the Act).

2. One Smt. Dhanraj Kuar died leaving some grove and agricultural plots which she had inherited from her husband. She had acquired Bbumidhari rights in respect of the agricultural plots before her death. During the consolidation proceedings the Gaon Sabha, Jehwa moved an application before the Consolidation Officer claiming that as Smt. Dhanraj Kuar had died heirless her entire holding vested in the Gram Samaj. The original petitioners Bhagwan Singh and Lalloo Singh filed objection laying claim to the estate of the deceased widow on the basis of :-

(i) inheritance being her husband's brother's son's sons:

(ii) Will executed by Smt. Dhanraj Kuar on 12-10-1962 in favour of Bhagwan Singh :

(iii) Registered sale-deed dated 4-4-1963 executed by Smt. Dhanraj Kunwar in respect of her entire holding including groves in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners' objection was rejected and the claim of the Gaon Sabha was upheld. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and their revision under Section 48 of the Act was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 26-3-1966. The petitioners then, moved the present writ Petition.

3. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before Hari Swarup, J., he noticed that one of the questions that arose in the case was as to whether the widow was competent to transfer the whole of her agricultural holding without the prior permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as required by Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.

4. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act enacts that no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) previously obtained shall transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. Full Bench of this court in Smt. Asharfunissa Begum v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Camp at Hardoi, AIR 1971 All 87 (FB) has taken the view that the expression "any part of his holding" did not include the entire holding so that the ban applied only where it part of holding was transferred and not when, the holding was transferred as a whole. The learned Judge noticed the Hindi version of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which reads :

"NA CHAKBANDI KSHETTRA ME SAMMILIT APKI JOT ATHWA USKE KISHI BHAG KO VIKRAYA DAN ATHWA BINIMAY DWARA HASTANTRIT KAREGA."

According to the Hindi version the ban would apply as much to the transfer of a part of the holding as to the whole. In his opinion the words in the English version were not clear and it was possible to interpret them in accordance with the Hindi version of the enactment. Hand accordingly referred the matter to Full Bench and that is how this petition has come up before us.

5. To begin with, we might state that although the learned Judge has not indicated as to whether the entire case has to be decided by Full Bench or only the question relating to the interpretation of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, yet having regard to the fact and the circumstances of the case the intention of the learned Judge was to refer only the limited question relating to the interpretation of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) and not the whole case, because even if the petitioners fail on this ground their alternative pleas will have to be examined. We shall accordingly restrict ourselves to the short question as to whether the ban incorporated in Section 5(1)(c)(ii) applies to the transfer of an agricultural holding as a whole or applies only when a part of the holding is transferred. Clause (c) of Section 5(1) was added in the Act by Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1958 (U.P. Act XXXVIII of 1958) and reads as under:-

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no