JUDGMENT

V.G. Oak, C.J. - This special appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. During consolidation operations chak No. 26 was allotted to Jagat Narain Singh. On 25-5-1964 Jagat Narain Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Munna Lal Shukla with respect to the entire holding comprised under chak No. 26. Later Jagat Narain Singh executed' another sale deed for the same property in favour of Ram Behari Shukla. Relying on the sale deed dated 25-5-1964 in his favour, Munna Lal Shukla applied for mutation. The application for mutation was dismissed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. That decision was upheld in appeal and in revision by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively. Against these decisions of the consolidation authorities, a writ petition was filed in this Court by Munna Lal Shukla. The writ petition has been allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court. He quashed the orders of the three consolidation authorities, and directed that the application by Munna Lal Shukla for mutation should be disposed of in accordance with law. Against that order of the learned single Judge, the present special appeal has been filed by Ram Behari Shukla.

2. The consolidation authorities declined to allow mutation in Munna Lal's favour on the ground that he had not obtained permission from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). On the other hand, tho learned single Judge of this Court has held that in the circumstances of the present case no such permission was needed. The question for determination in the special appeal is, therefore, whether permission was needed to support the sale deed dated 25-5-1964.

3. The matter is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act. This Act has been amended from time to time. The sale deed in question was executed in the year 1964. We are, therefore, concerned with the Act, as it stood after the amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963.

4. Sec. 5 of the Act describes the effect of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. Clause (c) of Section 5 is:

"Notwithstanding anything contained ... no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall

(i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or

(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area ..."

5. The question is whether the sale deed dated 25-5-1964 falls within the prohibition of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 5 of the Act. The consolidation authorities thought that the sale deed did fall within the prohibition. On the other hand, the learned single Judge has held that the prohibition should be confined to the sale of a part of a holding and does not extend to a sale of the entire holding.

6. A similar question came before this Court in Natthi Singh v. Kanchhida, 1962 RD (HC) 226. In that case it was held by A. P. Srivastava, J. that it is not possible to accept the contention that though one or more plots of a Khata cannot be transferred the whole Khata can be transferred without such permission. In that case the learned Judge had to consider the provision of Section 16-A of the Act as it stood before the amendment by U.P. Act XXXVIII of 1958. The provision of Section 16-A of the Act as it stood then is somewhat similar to the provision of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 5 of the Act as it stands after its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963.

7. In the present case the learned single Judge was aware of the broad position that when there is a prohibition against the transfer of any part of a holding, it should be construed to mean prohibition against a transfer of the whole holding. But he considered that, in view of the context of Section 5 (c) (ii) , the prohibition should not be