Gur Sharan Lal and Jagmohan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition which relates to consolidation proceedings under the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been refer red to a Full Bench to enable reconsi deration of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Behari Shukla v. Munna Lal Shukla, 1968 All LJ 223.
(2.) THE facts of the case are brief ly these, one Bashir Mohammad owned Bhumidhari and Sirdari holdings in vil lage Itara, Pargana Alamnagar, Tahsil Shahbad of district Hardoi, as also land in villages Pihani and Nepania of the same Tahsil and a house in Qasba Pihani. According to the petitioner Smt. Ashra-funnisa Begum, who is the widow of Bashir Mohammad, the latter made an oral gift on 24-10- 1965 of the aforesaid property in her favour exclusively and delivered possession to her. Shortly after Bashir Mohammad died. There after Opposite Party No. 4 Zamir Moha mmad, son of Bashir Mohammad, filed an objection claiming exclusive heirship to Bashir Mohammad as his son. The petitioner made an objection claiming exclusive right to the aforesaid property on the basis of the aforesaid oral gift in her favour. The Consolidation Officer to whom the controversy was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer re jected the petitioner's claim and held opposite party no. 4 to be the heir of Bashir Mohammad on his death. The claim on the basis of gift was rejected both on the ground that the gift had not been satisfactorily proved and that per mission of the Settlement Officer Conso lidation to transfer the land under Sec tion 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act while conso lidation proceedings were going on in that village, had not been obtained as required and without such permission the transfer was void. An appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Settle ment Officer Consolidation. The peti tioner then filed a revision under Sec tion 48 of the Act but the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Opp. party no. 1) who held that the gift which covered both Bhumidhari and Sirdari land could ope rate only in regard to Bhumidhari land since Sirdari land was non-transferable. About the Bhumidhari land itself he agreed with the conclusions of the afore said two lower consolidation authorities. The petitioner then filed this writ peti tion challenging the order of opposite party no. 1. The petitioner's contention in this court is that since the entire Bhumi-dhari and the entire Sirdari holding in village para was transferred to her. no permission of the Consolidation Officer was required for this transfer. It is also contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not apply his mind nor give his own decision, on the question of gift in regard to which the findings of the two lower consolidation authorities had been questioned in the revision.
(3.) THE writ petition has been con tested by opposite party no. 4 who filed a counter affidavit against which the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit.;