N.U.Beg, A.C.J. - (1.)This writ petition has been filed by Jai Narain who is the son of one Ayodhya Prasad and grandson of one Pooran. The petitioner's case was that Pooran was the owner of zamindari shares in pattis Nos. 2 and 3 of village Khatkari in the district of Sitapur in which the plots in suit are situate. The said plots were his sir, and khudkasht. In 1923 the aforesaid Pooran died and was survived by his three sons and grandsons who constituted a joint Hindu family with him. In 1941 there was a partition in the family, and in the said partition the plots in suit were allotted to the branch of Ayodhya Prasad, respondent No. 1 which consisted of himself and his two sons. The petitioner is a son of Ayodhya Prasad. On June 15, 1959, the aforesaid Ayodhya Prasad sold the plots in suit and kothar etc. in favour of Mani Ham and Diwakar Prakash who are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the writ petition for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,800.00 without any legal necessity. On Aug. 28, 1959, the petitioner filed a civil suit for the cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed on the ground that it related to joint Hindu family property and was executed without any legal necessity. Thereafter respondents Nos. 2 and 3 applied for mutation of names in their favour under the sale deed dated June 15, 1959. Both the mutation case as well as the civil suit were stayed as the property in dispute came under the consolidation operations. Both parties moved the Consolidation Officer. On July 11, 1960, the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on the lines on which he had filed the plaint in the civil Court. On Jan. 31, 1961, the Consolidation Officer refused to give effect to the sale deed mentioned above on the ground that the subject matter of the said sale deed was joint Hindu family property, that Ayodhya Prasad, respondent No. 1, was the karta of the said family and that he had no authority to sell it without legal necessity. He further found that there being no legal necessity for the sale deed the sale deed was bad in law. On Aug. 7, 1961, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal filed by the vendees i.e. respondents Nos. 2 and 3. On Nov. 27, 1961, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the appeal filed by respondents 2 and 3 and reversed the findings of the first two Courts. On March 7, 1962, the Director (Consolidation) Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent No. 4, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Director of Consolidation the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Director dated Nov. 27, 1961, and of the Director of Consolidation dated March 7, 1962. The orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and of the Director of Consolidation are Annexures 4 and 5 respectively.
(2.)On behalf of the petitioner learned counsel has argued that there is nothing in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act indicating that the sir and khudkasht land held by an intermediary prior to the abolition of zamindari loses the character of joint Hindu family property after the coming into force of the said Act. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents the learned counsel argued that an intermediary in possession of sir and khudkasht on the first of July, 1951 becomes a bhumidhar of the said land under Sec. 18 of the Act. He further argued that the tenure created under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was a new right altogether and not substitution of a prior right by another right with the result that the incidents applicable to the prior right cease to be applicable to the new right which is carved out under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the ease of Rana Sheo Ambar Singh Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad, 1961 A.W.R. 546 . In this case while dealing with the effect of Sec. 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on three kinds of properties, viz. sir, khudkasht land and intermediary's grove their Lordships observed as follows:-
"Further the way in which Sec. 18 is worded, (namely that khudkasht and sir land and intermediary's grove shall be deemed to be settled with the intermediary and he would have bhumidhari rights therein) shows that these three kinds of property vested in the State under Sec. 6(a)(i) and were then resettled with the intermediary on a new tenure and not in the same right which he had in them before the vesting. The legislature was therefore creating a new right under Sec. 18 and the old proprietary right in sir and khudkasht land and any intermediary's grove land had already vested under Sec. 6 in the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sec. 18 is an exception to the consequences provided in Sec. 6 and therefore sir and khudkasht land and grove land continue to be the property of the judgment-debtor in this case in the same manner as they were his property at the time of the mortgage and would therefore be available in execution of the decree as the proprietary rights mortgaged. We are of opinion that the proprietary rights in sir and khudkasht land and in grove land have vested in the State and what is conferred on the intermediary by Sec. 18 is a new right altogether which he never had and which could not therefore have been mortgaged in 1914."
If the bhumidhari rights created under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is a new right altogether as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above case, then it would be difficult to hold that the incidents of the old right continue to apply to the new right. The U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act itself contains elaborate provisions defining the nature of the new right and governing its devolution. The new right created under the Act would, therefore, be governed not by the personal law but by the statutory law to which it owes its origin and by which it is regulated. Thus the conditions in respect of the transfer of a fragment situate in a consolidated area by a bhumidhar are laid down in Sec. 168-A of the Act. A transfer in contravention of the said provision of law is declared void by the statute. Similarly Sec. 169 of the Act governs transfers of bhumidhari right by Will and provides as follows:-
"169. Bequest by a bhumidhar - (1) A bhumidhar may by will bequeath his holding or any part thereof except as provided in sub-section (2).

(2) No bhumidhar entitled to any holding or part in the right of a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, mother, daughter, father's mother, son's daughter, sister or half-sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased, may bequeath by will such holding or part.

(3) Every will made under provisions of sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in law custom or usage, be in writing and attested by two persons."

(3.)Sec. 171 of the Act lays down the general order of succession in respect of properties of a male bhumidhar, sirdar or an asami on his death and the opening portion of the said Sec. provides as follows:-
"171. General order of succession - Subject to the provisions of Sec. 169, when a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below....."
Thereafter it is followed by clauses (a) to (r) which lay down the special line of succession carved out by the Statute. Thus in respect of inheritance and succession also the personal law of a party holding the bhumidhari rights stands superseded by the statutory law with the result that the law of survivor ship which would govern a male who is a member of the joint Hindu family would cease to apply to bhumidhari property held by him. Similarly, Sec. 172 regulates succession in the case of a female bhumidhar, sirdar or asami who has, after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in a holding as widow, mother, daughter, etc. Sec. 174 lays down the order of succession on the death of a female who was a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami other than mentioned in Sec. 171 or 172.