GUR SHARAN LAL, J. (for himself and Jagmohan Lal, J.) :- This writ petition which relates to consolidation proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been referred to a Full Bench to enable reconsideration of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Behari Shukla v. Munna Lal Shukla, 1968 All LJ 223.

2. The facts of the case are briefly these, one Bashir Mohammad owned Bhumidhari and Sirdari holdings in village Itara, Pargana Alamnagar, Tahsil Shahbad of district Hardoi, as also land in villages Pihani and Nepania of the same Tahsil and a house in Qasba Pihani. According to the petitioner Smt. Ashrafunnisa Begum, who is the widow of Bashir Mohammad, the latter made an oral gift on 24-10-1965 of the aforesaid property in her favour exclusively and delivered possession to her. Shortly after Bashir Mohammad died. Thereafter Opposite Party No. 4 Zamir Mohammad, son of Bashir Mohammad, filed an objection claiming exclusive heirship to Bashir Mohammad as his son. The petitioner made an objection claiming exclusive right to the aforesaid property on the basis of the aforesaid oral gift in her favour. The Consolidation Officer to whom the controversy was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer rejected the petitioner's claim and held opposite party no. 4 to be the heir of Bashir Mohammad on his death. The claim on the basis of gift was rejected both on the ground that the gift had not been satisfactorily proved and that permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to transfer the land under Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act while consolidation proceedings were going on in that village, had not been obtained as required and without such permission the transfer was void. An appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner then filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act but the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Opp. party no. 1) who held that the gift which covered both Bhumidhari and Sirdari land could operate only in regard to Bhumidhari land since Sirdari land was non-transferable. About the Bhumidhari land itself he agreed with the conclusions of the aforesaid two lower consolidation authorities. The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the order of opposite party no. 1.

3. The petitioner's contention in this court is that since the entire Bhumidhari and the entire Sirdari holding in village Itara was transferred to her, no permission of the Consolidation Officer was required for this transfer. It is also contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not apply his mind nor give his own decision, on the question of gift in regard to which the findings of the two lower consolidation authorities had been questioned in the revision.

4. The writ petition has been contested by opposite party no. 4 who filed a counter affidavit against which the petitioner filed a rejoinder

affidavit.

5. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation of which a copy will be found as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, shows that he proceeded to state in the second paragraph of his order the argument that was advanced before him on behalf of the revisionist (petitioner) by her counsel on the two questions of necessity of obtaining permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the proof of the fact of gift. Then observing that "there is considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for opposite parties" he proceeded to consider only the question whether permission was required and held that it was required. The statement about existence of force in the arguments might very well have been intended to relate to the point of need for permission which was discussed in the ending part of the paragraph. There is substance, therefore, in the argument on the petitioner's side that the order would show that the question whether the gift h