Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as amended in 1974, requires prior written permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation for any transfer of a holding or any part thereof, including the entire holding.

B.D. AGARWALA, J.

1. The dispute in this case relates to certain plots of Chak No. 251 situate in village Nanakhera, Pargana Ujhani, District Budaun. The Petitioners' case is that originally the land in dispute belonged to Batool Khan Respondent No. 2 and by a registered sale deed dated 20th April, 1976 the land was transferred in favour of the Petitioners. Accordingly, an application was filed by the Petitioners praying for their names being entered in the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated October 27, 1976 directed the entry of the Petitioners ' name in respect of the land in dispute, in view of this registered sale deed. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. This appeal was decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The view taken by him was that since the sale deed pertained to the entire holding of the transferor and not merely in respect of a part thereof, as such there was no necessity for obtaining the prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. The Respondent No. 2 filed a revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This revision came up for decision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp at Budaun. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 31st March, 1978. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that in view of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act as existing after the amendment made in the said provision by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974, prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would be necessary even if the entire holding was the subject-matter of transfer. It is this judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which the Petitioners have impugned in the present petition.

2. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition has no merit.

3. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as it existed. before its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 read thus:

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, no tenure holder except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, previously obtained shall--(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area.

After its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974, which amending Act came into force on 7th December, 1974, it reads thus:

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation previously obtained shall-(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area.

4. Clearly, the language of this provision as existing after its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 leaves no doubt whatsoever that whether transfer is in respect of the entire holding or any part thereof, previous permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has to be obtained. The Legislature introduced this amendment so as to bring within the fold of this provision even those transfers where the holding may be transferred in whole. The clear language of the provision admits of no doubt as to the intention of the legislature.

5. The provision as existing prior to its amendment in 1974 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Ram Rati and Others Vs. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and Others, AIR 1974 All 106. The full Bench took the view that the expression 'any part of his holding' did not include 'whole holding'. This interpretation was placed by the Full Bench relying upon the clear language of the provision as it then existed. The language of the proviso at the end of Clause (ii) also heavily weighed wit