Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner Charan Singh filed objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called as the Act) on the basis that Phulloo, father of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 had executed a sale deed in his favour on 2.7.1979. The objections were contested by respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Their case was that no sale deed was executed by Phulloo in favour of the petitioner and that the sale deed was in any case void as no permission under section 5(l)(c)(ii) of the Act was taken and that it was also transfer of a fragment hit by the provisions of section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the petitioner with the finding that the sale deed dated 2.7.1979 was executed after the publication of the gazette notification under section 4(2) of the Act and therefore prior permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was necessary and the sale deed was void. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 13.4.1988. Aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai for the petitioner and S/Sri Chetan Chatterjee, Irfan Chaudhary and S.S. Pandey for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8.
(3.) In this case notification under section 4(2)of the Act was published in the gazette on 15.6.1979 and the notification was published in the unit on 24.8.1979. Tire sale deed was executed in between those dates, on 2.7.1979. These facts are not disputed by the Counsel for the parties. All the consolidation authorities have taken the view that the sale deed was void as it was executed after the publication of the notification under section 4(2) of the Act. The view does not appear to be correct. Section 4(2) (a) of the Act provides that when the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area it may issue a notification to this effect. Clause (b) of section 4(2) provides that every such notification shall be published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit, in the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate,. The consequences mentioned in section 5(c) (i) and (ii) shall ensue in the area to which the notification under section 4(2) relates, upon the publication of the notification under section 4(2) in the official Gazette. Subsection (8) of section 2 of the Act provides for the manner of publication in the unit, the document w'hich is to be published has to be read out on a date of which prior notice shall be given by beat of drum, and proclamation by beat of drum, or, in any other customary mode, in the unit of the fact that the document is open to public inspection at an appointed place and time. The publication of the gazette in the unit would therefore be treated to have been made after these steps are taken. The purpose of a notification under section 4(2)(a) is that the tenure-holder may come to know about the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of the section 4 of the Act provides for the mode of publication of a notification under section 4(2) (a). The notification is to be effective only when published : (1) in the Official Gazette. (2) in a daily newspaper having wide circulation in the area, and (3) also published in each unit of the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate. After these steps are taken the publication of the notification in the unit is complete. The provisions of section 5(c) and 4(2) of the Act have been interpreted in Nagim and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar and others, 1998 (Suppl.) RD 61 (HC). This Court took the view that the notification would be complete on the date when it is published in the unit. The view taken by the Courts below is therefore erroneous.;