- (1.) Section 16-A of the U. P. Consolation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U. P. Act. V of 1954), which for brevity we shall refer to as the Act as it stood at the relevant date, enacted : "16-A. (1) After the publication of the statement under Section 16 and until the issue of a notification under Section 52, a tenure-holder shall not, except with the permission in writing of the settlement Officer (Consolidation) previously obtained, transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any plot or share in any holding included in the scheme of consolidation notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P . Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (2) The Settlement Officer shall grant the permission referred to in sub-section (1) unless for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that the proposed transfer is likely to defeat the scheme of consolidation." The four respondents before us made two applications to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, for permission under sub-s. (1) of the above provision for transfer by way of exchange of certain plots in 11 villages which were included in schemes of consolidation in those several village in which such proceedings were taking place. The officer, however, refused the permission sought under sub-s. (2) and his decision was affirmed on an application by way of revision filed by the respondents, by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Challenging the legality of the said orders of the Consolidation authorities the respondents filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the same by the issue of a Writ of Certiorari under Art 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it. A special appeal was thereupon preferred and the Bench allowed the appeal holding that the Settlement Officer in passing his order rejecting the applications for exchange had proceeded on grounds not germane for the purpose on the terms of the statute and on that finding set it aside and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Settlement Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law as was explained in their judgment. Aggrieved by this the Settlement authorities, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and the Settlement of Officer Consolidation, sought a certificate from the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution but this was refused. They then applied for and obtained special leave of this Court under Art. 136 and that is how the appeal is before us.
(2.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that while the learned Judges of the High Court were right in setting aside the order of the Consolidation authorities refusing the application under S. 16-A of the Act, the directions which the High Court gave to the Settlement Officer in the matter of his reconsidering the applications were in their turn not proper and consequently while the appeal has to be allowed, the applications have to be remitted to the Settlement Officer for being disposed of properly in accordance with law.
(3.) We shall now proceed to set out our reasons for the above conclusion.;