- (1.) B. L. Yadav, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 6th May, 1991 and 18th June, 1993, passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) THE portrayal of the essential facts are that Chak No. 81 was recorded in the name of petitioners. It appears that written permission of Budhan and THEre after it was recorded in the name of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to make the transfer of one-third portion of Chak No. 81 was applied for by the petitioner and the said permission was granted by the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) and thereafter a sale-deed dated 21st December, 1982 was executed in favour of respondent No. 4, Mannu, who moved an application for mutation of his name which was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the permis sion, to make the transfer of one-third portion of Chak No. 81 was hit by the provisions of Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), inasmuch as no part of a Chak can be transferred and such transfer of one third portion of Chak No. 81 is not covered by the expression "holding or any part there. " In any case, permission under the aforesaid provision must have been sought for the entire Chak. THE case of the petitioner was negatived by the impugned orders, inasumch as the Consolidation Officer decided the case against the petitioner and that order was maintained in appeal under the impugned order dated 6th May, 1991 and the petitioner's revision under Section 48 of the Act met the same fate. Shri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner very ably argued the case. He urged that the expression 'hold ing or any part thereof connotes at least the entire Chak and not one- third portion of the Chak, as the term 'holding' is defined in Section 3 (4-C) of the Act as follows : " (4-C) 'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure- holders. " Consequently, it is argued that the impugned orders are manifestly er roneous. Shri S. K. Singh filed his caveat for respondent No. 4, Mannu. He urged that no doubt 'holding' has been defined in Section 3 (4-C) of the Act, but the same is a restrictive definition. The expression 'holding' used in the Act or the Rules is not confined only to parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act provides that no tenure- holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation pre viously obtained shall transfer by way of de-sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof. Reliance was placed on a decision in Smt. Ram Dulari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1990 RD 13 in Hindi (a case decided by me.) 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion the petition is devoid of merits. The point for determination in this petition is as to whether a part of the Chak can be covered by the expression 'holding or any part thereof used by the Legislature in Section 5 (i) (c) (ii) of the Act. What expression 'holding' means has been defined hi Section 3 (4-C) of the Act. If obviously means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure. Consequently, either the entire holding or any part therof can be sought to be transferred. There may be so many Chaks under one holding and a part of the said Holding can be sought to be transferred and thus one-third Chak of the petitioner is covered by the ex pression 'holding or any part thereof. If there was any restriction as urged by the learned counsel for the1 petitioner to be imposed in making the transfer of a Chak by a tenure-holder, hi that event the Legislature would have added a proviso to Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act restricting the meaning of the expression 'holding or any part thereof. As there is no restriction imposed by the Legislature hi its wisdom, I would not be justified to add that proviso to Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. 6. Kali Charan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gyanpur, 1981 AWC 840, was also a case based on similar facts where the permission was obtained in respect of one Chak but only few plots out of that Chak were transferred and it was held that the said transfer or the permission obtained was valid. That case was relied upon by me in Smt. Ram Dulari v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (supra ). I am accordingly of the considered opinion that the expression 'holding or any part thereof is also comprehensive and it connotes even a Chak or a part thereof. To put it differently even if one-third or one-fourth of a Chak is sought to be transferred, an application can be made for written permission of the Set tlement Officer, Consolidation under Sec tion 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act and the transfer can be made in consequence of the aforesaid permission and the said transfer can be valid and legal. I am accordingly of the considered opinion that even if a tenure-holder has got three Chaks and he made an application for transferring one Chak or certain plots contained therein and the permission was granted by the Settlement Officer, Con solidation and the transfer was effect, such transfer cannot be said to be illegal. The impugned orders are perfectly cor rect. 7. Consequently, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;