Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the opposite party No. 1 from proceeding any further with a miscellaneous application dated 12.4.2016 filed by the second respondent.

3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 30 area 0.287 hectares situated in Village Sonari, District Jaunpur. The petitioner is recorded over this plot, having purchased the same by means of a registered sale-deed dated 20.1.1997, executed by one Dhannu.

4. On 12.4.2016, a complaint was made by the second respondent, alleging therein, that the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, had been executed by one Dhannu, who belonged to the scheduled caste, without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector contemplated in Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The notice has been issued to the petitioner on this miscellaneous application.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the village is under consolidation operations. The question of any violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can only be determined by the consolidation Courts. The A.D.M. Sadar, Jaunpur, the first respondent, has no jurisdiction to go into the question especially when the unit is under consolidation operations. Hence this writ of prohibition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following three judgments in support of his contention.

7. Maqsooda Khatun v. State, 1994 RD 7. In this case it has been held by the Board of Revenue that the question of violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act involves adjudication of rights and correction of papers and, therefore, only the consolidation Courts will have jurisdiction during the currency of consolidation operations and that such proceedings shall abate under Section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

7-A. Reliance has also been placed upon Badal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1970 RD 240, which is a full Bench decision. It has been held therein that in case limitation to file a suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act is present on the date, notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued, relief can be granted by the consolidation Courts.

8. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Khageshwar v. Hoshram, AIR 1966 Allahabad 191, wherein it has been held that where an order is without jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition must be issued.

9. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the record as also the judgments cited.

10. In so far as the judgment of the Board of Revenue is concerned, it no doubt holds that proceedings under Section 157-A and Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act shall abate on the start of consolidation operations but, it is not clear from this judgment, as to the point in time, when this issue arose. This is relevant because Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides, that every transfer made in contravention of the provision of this Act, shall be void. This Section 166 was substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from 3.6.1981. Section 167 was also newly substituted by the same amending Act.

11. The aforesaid sections were entirely different prior to the amendment aforesaid. The connotations of these two sections have changed completely post this amendment. Till such time it is established that the order of the Board of Revenue pertained to the amended sections, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim any benefit of the said judgment.

12. Prior to this amendment in 1982, the old Section 167 read as follows :

“167. Where a sirdar or asami has made any transfer in contravention of