- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 24-9-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1. It appears that on a complaint, proceedings under Section 168- A of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were initiated on the basis of the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Shakurtiddin on 9-1-1989 and 20-10-89 in favour of Ram Prakash, the petitioner. From the evidence on the record, it was proved that Shakuruddin did transfer frag ment and not his entire holding or his entire Bhumidhari Land, in favour of petitioner, therefore, the respondent. No. 2 passed the order and vested the land in dispute in the State. Feeling aggrieved a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Commis sioner. The Commissioner made a recom mendation to the Board of Revenue for set ting aside the order passed by the respon dent No. 2. The Board of Revenue rejected the recommendation made by the Commis sioner and upheld the validity of the order passed by the respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE Commissioner while making the reference has taken the view that Shakruddin was a co-tenure holder and his share was not partitioned, therefore, Section 168-A of the Act will have no application in the present case. The view taken by the Commis sioner was apparently erroneous is inas much as undivided share, or fragment there of can be transferred. Section 168-A of the Act reads as follows:- "section 168-A. Transfer of fragments.- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidated area except where the transfer is in favour of tenure-holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not in favour of any such tenure holder, the whole or so much of the plot in which the person has bhumidhari rights, which pertains to the fragment is hereby transferred. (2) The transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub- section (1) shall be void. (3) When a Bhumidhar has made any trans fer in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec tion (1) the provisions of Section 167 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply. ";