The expression "holding or any part thereof" used in Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is comprehensive and includes even a Chak or a part thereof.

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 petitioners revision under Section 48 of the Act met the same fate.

3. Shri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner very ably argued the case. He urged that the expression hold ing or any part thereof connotes at least the entire Chak and not one- third portion of the Chak, as the term holding is defined in Section 3 (4-C) of the Act as follows :

" (4-C) holding means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure- holders. "

Consequently, it is argued that the impugned orders are manifestly er roneous.

4. Shri S. K. Singh filed his caveat for respondent No. 4, Mannu. He urged that no doubt holding has been defined in Section 3 (4-C) of the Act, but the same is a restrictive definition. The expression holding used in the Act or the Rules is not confined only to parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act provides that no tenure- holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation pre viously obtained shall transfer by way of de-sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof. Reliance was placed on a decision in Smt. Ram Dulari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1990 RD 13 in Hindi (a case decided by me.) 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion the petition is devoid of merits. The point for determination in this petition is as to whether a part of the Chak can be covered by the expression holding or any part thereof used by the Legislature in Section 5 (i) (c) (ii) of the Act. What expression holding means has been defined hi Section 3 (4-C) of the Act. If obviously means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure. Consequently, either the entire holding or any part therof can be sought to be transferred. There may be so many Chaks under one holding and a part of the said Holding can be sought to be transferred and thus one-third Chak of the petitioner is covered by the ex pression holding or any part thereof. If there was any restriction as urged by the learned counsel for the1 petitioner to be imposed in making the transfer of a Chak by a tenure-holder, hi that event the Legislature would have added a proviso to Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act restricting the meaning of the expression holding or any part thereof. As there is no restriction imposed by the L