A sale-deed executed after the time fixed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is not void for want of permission under Section 5 (1) (c) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act if the vendees explain the circumstances of the delay and it is not due to their conduct.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation, Jaunpur, respondent No. 1 whereby the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been directed to be mutated in the revenue records.

2. The facts, in brief, are that respon dent Nos. 2 and 3 filed application for muta tion of their names in the revenue records before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the allegation that Budhi Ram had ex ecuted a sale-deed in respect of the land in dispute on 16th August, 1975 in their favour and their names should be recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner, claiming herself as daughter of Budhi Ram, filed ob jection denying that any sale-deed was ex ecuted by Budhi Ram as alleged by respon dents No. 2 and 3. It was further contended that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had granted permission on 7th August, 1975 for execution of the sale-deed with a condi tion that the sale- deed could be executed within one week but the sale-deed was ex ecuted on 16th August, 1975 and in these circumstances the execution of the sale-deed shall be taken to have been done without obtaining permission of the Settle ment Officer Consolidation as provided under Section 5 (l) (c) of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the respondents by order dated 15th June, 1981 on the ground that respondents had not filed any affidavit indicating that they did not possess more than 12 1/2 acres of land and secondly, the sale-deed was executed after the time prescribed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation for execution of the sale-deed.

3. The respondents filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed on 17-7-1982. They further preferred revision against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision by order dated 30th July, 1986. It was held that the sale-deed was validly ex ecuted. The respondents filed affidavit in dicating that they did not possess more than 121/2 acres of land. The delay of two days in execution of the sale-deed was explained. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Sri S. K. Srivasatava, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Settlement Officer Consolidation granted permission on 7th August, 1975 with the condition that the sale-deed shall be executed within one week but it was executed on 16th August, 1975 i. e. after two days beyond the time fixed for execution of the sale-deed and as such it should be treated as void.

5. Respondent No. 1 has considered this aspect in detail. He accepted the ex planation given by respondents that on 14th August, 1975 the Deputy Director of Consolidation had come in the village for mak ing inspection and on the said date it be come difficult to get the sale-deed executed and 15th August, 1975 was a public holiday. In these circumstances the sale-deed was rightly executed on 16th August, 1975. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion was substantially complied with.

6. In case the permission is granted to execute the sale-deed within a specified period and it has not been executed within that period but the vendees indicate the circumstances on account of which the delay occurred and if it is not on account of their conduct, the sale-deed executed after the period fixed

for its execution cannot be held to be void for want of permission as provided under Section 5 (l) (c) of the Act. The intention of the legislature was that the sale-deed should be executed with the per mission of the Settlement Officer Con solidation so that the consolidation proceedings should not be jeopardised in the carvation of chaks. In Lalji v. Joint Direc tor of Consolidation and others, 1983 ALJ 349, it was held that the purpose of grant of permission by the Settlement Officer Con solidation to the proposed transfer of the land under Section 5 (l) (c) is that the trans fer does not have adverse eff