- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The petitioners who were the recorded Bhumidhars of plot No. 4700 and 4701 obtained permission for transferring an area of 1. 5 Bighas out of plot Nos. 4700 and 4701 which permission con templated under Section 5 of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act was granted by the competent authority on 5-10-77. The permission which had been applied for was in respect of the entire area of plots No. 4700 and 4701/7 but only a part of the said area was transferred. The competent authority, while granting the permission had provided that the transfer should be effected within 30 days. The sale-deed was thereafter executed on 23-2-1978 that is to say after the expiry of 30 days time provided for in the order dated 5-10-1977. However, the petitioners moved another application for permission to transfer which was granted on 2-3-1978. In this order also the permission of transfer was to remain opera tive for 30 days, indicating that the time for sale was being extended.
(2.) THE application seeking mutation on the basis or the sale-deed dated 23-2-1978, registered on 10-3- 1978 was thereafter moved by the transferees Shiv Shankar, and Satya Prakash. THE said ap plication which was moved u/s. 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 18-4-1979 holding that the sale-deed had been ex ecuted at a point of time when the permis sion to sell contemplated u/s. 5 (c) (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not in existence. It was further observed that the permission sought for was for the transferor the entire plot Nos. 4700 and 4701 but out of 1 Bigha 10 Biswas, an area of 1 Bigha and 5 Biswas only had been transferred. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer, the transferees preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 24- 5-1980 indicating that although the per mission to transfer had been granted on 5-10-1977 yet the sale deed in question was executed at a point of time when the said permission had ceased to be operative. It was further indicated that the entire area of plots had not been transferred and it was not clear as to which portion of which plot out of two plots had been left out. The Settlement Officer Consolidation was of the view that when the permission had been sought for the transfer of the entire area of the plots, the transfer in respect of only part of the same could not be recognised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. One of the transferees viz. Satya Prakash filed a revision challenging the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion passed in appeal but the said revision was dismissed as not pressed on 23-1- 1981.
(3.) BOTH the transferees however, moved a fresh application under Section 12 of the P. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide the order dated 21-8- 1980. In this order it has been noticed that on 19-12-1977, an area of 4 Biswas, 14 Biswansis had been acquired in the proceed ings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 out of plots in respect whereof permis sion for transfer has been sought for. Subsequently however, vide the order dated 22-3-1991, the Competent Authority held that the petitioner did not possess any such vacant land which could be held to be surplus.;