Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of instant writ petition, petitioners have challenged the orders whereby the Joint Director of Consolidation accepted the reference made under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act [in short referred to as the ‘’Act’] by the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer regarding mutation of petitioner’s name.

3. According to the learned Counsel, petitioners had purchased complete Chaks after 7th December,1974 from their different vendors in the Villages in which they reside except petitioners No. 17, 18, 21 and 22, who had purchased complete chaks in the Villages Chandpur Bhatpura Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad and Arjunpur, Pargana Minjhaura, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad respectively. The consolidation proceedings both under Section 9 and Section 20 of the Act were entirely completed by the Ist week of December, 1974 and the petitioners were under an honest belief that complete chaks could be bought even before issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act for closing of consolidation operation.

4. Clarifying the position, it has been submitted that petitioners had purchased complete chaks after 7.12.1974 on different dates and were given possession of the chaks which they had purchased by the vendors and thus they applied for mutation before their respective Assistant Consolidation officers. The vendors admitted to have delivered the possession to the petitioners on the basis of the sale-deed and, therefore, the Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the mutation application.

5. Later on, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (opposite parties No. 2) made three references on 19.7.1976, 26.6.1976 and 20.8.1976 to the Joint Director of Consolidation (opposite party No. 1) for cancelling the mutation order. The Joint Director of Consolidation after receiving the references had called for the petitioners to be present on 26.8.1976 with their evidence. The petitioners appeared before the Joint Director of Consolidation on 27.8.1976 and stated that the transfers were bona fide and mutation orders were passed on the basis of possession and by way of conciliation because vendors admitted that they had delivered the possession. Without considering the explanation given by the petitioners, the Joint Director cancelled the mutation of the petitioners vide order dated 7.9.1976, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

6. It has also been submitted that proceedings under Sections 9 and 20 of the Act having been completed in the villages concerned and as such the transfer of land by way of transfer did not cause any injury or inconvenience to any one and no interference in the consolidation proceedings were caused although the formal notification under Section 52 of the Act was not made. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, in contrast, has submitted that petitioners had purchased the holdings through sale-deeds after 7/12/1974 i.e. after the commencement of the consolidation proceedings and the village was under notification. As per amended Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act, no tenure holder could sale,git or exchange, his whole holding or part of it without obtaining prior permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that they are innocent and had no knowledge about the amendment in law and the same has been done in good faith is not acceptable as ignorance of law is no excuse.

8. According to Section 5 (c) (ii) of the amended U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 7.12.1974, no tenure holder could sale, gift or exchange his whole holding or part of it without obtaining the prior permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore, it is obvio