K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 in the present writ petition being transferees of the disputed land applied for their names to be mutated over the same. The Petitioner contested their claim on the ground that the sale deed was bad in law as no permission was sought for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite parties under the provisions of Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act. The aforesaid provision reads as below: Upon the publication of the notification under Sub -section (2) of Section 4 in the official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 or Sub -section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification under Sub -Section 4(2) relates; namely. (a).... (b).... (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of Settlement Officer (Consolidation), previously obtained shall. (i).... (ii) Transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area.
(2.) RELYING upon the aforesaid provision it has been contended before me that the consolidation authorities have patently erred in giving effect to the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite parties. It has been emphasized that the sale deed was executed by the Civil Court in favour of the contesting opposite parties on behalf of the Petitioner, hence it was incumbent upon the Civil Court to have obtained necessary permission under Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act. All the consolidation authorities have negatived the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner in this regard.
(3.) WHILE construing the provisions of Section 154 of the UP ZA and LR Act, Division Bench of this Court in Mst. Janatun Nisan v. Mustafa Husain Khan, 1955 ALJ 242 observed as below: ...It is doubtful whether the restriction contained in Section 154 is applicable to an execution sale....;