JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned brief holder for the State and Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Collector, Saharanpur and the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Mandal, Saharanpur.

3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vary provision i.e. Section 168A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having been deleted from the Statute vide U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2004 notified w.e.f. 23.8.2004, there existed no more any law under which a transaction of land in fragmentation could be held to be void.

4. It is argued that though the amending law has taken immediate effect prospectively but has also saved those transactions which would have been rendered void by fiction of law created under the erstwhile Section 168A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He has drawn the attention of Section 4 and Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004, which provide in the first instance deletion of Section 168A from the Statute and secondly saving those transactions which were to be held otherwise void in view of fiction created by Section 168 of the Act.

5. It is argued that those transactions would now be rendered as voidable and can be validated by depositing such fee as may be prescribed for by notification of the State Government. It is submitted that both the orders passed by the Collector dated 3.9.2004 admittedly after the amending provision had been brought into existence as per notification issued on 23.8.2004 and so also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur, and therefore, are not sustainable.

6. Per contra, it is argued by Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned brief holder appearing for the State that provision as contained Section 11 of the Amending Act, 2004 created a prescribed period of one year only for getting such transaction prior to the Amending Act coming into force voidable if condition of deficit is certified with only within a period of one year. It is further argued that another Amending Act came into effect with notification on 29.3.2005 as the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005 whereby Section 11 of the old Amending Act has been completely omitted by sub-section 2 of Section 4. However, Section 4(1) reiterated the position of getting the old transactions validated by making deposit within a period of one year. Learned brief holder further placed before this Court U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Special Provisions) Act, 2014 and 2015 wherein by Section 2 this benefit to get the transfer validated by necessary deposit, was extended for a further period of two years i.e. upto 2015 and 2016

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the relevant amending provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the orders impugned herein this petition and I find only two questions arising in this case for consideration : (a) whether the Collector was justified in passing the order on 3.9.2004 holding the transaction in question being in fragment, to be prohibited under Section 168-A on 3.9.2004; and (b) whether the benefit conferred under Section 11 of the Amending Act of 2004 and Section 4(1) of the Amending Act, 2005 would be available to the petitioner?

8. Coming to the first question, I find that the provision Section 168-A was deleted from the Statute book by Amending Act, 2004 with immediate effect saving the old transactions by virtue of Section 11 of the said Act. It would be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of Section 168-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 runs as under:

"168-A. Transfer of f