R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) This petition raises an important question as to the interpretation of Sec. 154 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950. Does the family of transferee contemplated by Sec. 154 include his parents?
(2.) On 23 -6 -1960, the village Bheoli in the district of Fatehpur was brought under consolidation operations in accordance with the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. Khata No. 7, which related to bhumidhari land, was entered in the names of Smt. Janki, Ram Ratan and Chandrika Prasad and Khata No. 72, which related to sirdari land, was recorded in the names of Smt. Janki and Ham Ratan in the basic year. On 18 -3 -1960 Smt. Janki executed a sale deed in respect of a half spare in Khata No. 7 in favovr of Bharosey and certain others and on 8 -2 -1961 the similarly executed a sale deed in respect of khata No. 72 in favour of the same persons. An application was made by the transferees for mutation of their names, but an objection was filed by Smt. Janki's co -tenants. An application was also made by Chandrika Prasad for expunging the name of Smt. Janki on the ground that it was farzi. The applications were rejected by the Consolidation Officer who did not accept either the validity of the transfers or the plea that Srimati Janki's name was entered farzi. He directed that the entries should continue as recorded. The order was challenged in appeal by the transferees and by Chandrika Prasad before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The settlement officer held that Srimati Janki had lost her rights as a tenant in the khata before acquiring bhumidhari rights by depositing a sum equal to ten times the rent and had, therefore, no interest to transfer by sale. He directed that her name be expunged from the records and refused mutation of the names of the transferees. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal filed by Chandrika Prasad and dismissed that filed by the transferees. The transferees proceeded in second appeal. A second appeal was also filed by Srimati Janki. The Assistant Director of Consolidation disposing of the two second appeals held that the sale deeds were valid and ordered mutation in favour of the transferees. Chandrika Prasad applied in revision. The joint Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision application. Hence this petition for certiorari.
(3.) Before the joint Director the Petitioners challenged the validity of the sale deeds on the ground that the permission of the Settlement officer had not been taken before the execution of the sale deeds and on the ground that the transfers contravened the provision of Sec. 154 of the UP ZA and LR Act inasmuch as the land falling to the share of one of the transferees, Ishtiaq Ahmad, who was a minor, resulted in the limit of 12 -1/2 acres being exceeded when considered with the land already held by his parents. The Joint Director has held that in the case of the earlier sale deed the permission, of the Settlement Officer was not necessary as the transfer took place prior to the commencement of the consolidation operations. As regards the latter sale deed, he found that permission had been obtained from the Settlement Officer. The second ground upon which the transfers were challenged was negatived by the Joint Director who held that having regard to the terms of Sec. 154 there was no contravention of that provision.;