R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the power of the Magistrate to impose fine for use of land reserved for public utility for purposes other than agriculture as detailed in sub-paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proceedings started on a complaint, filed by opposite party, on 25th November, 1969 for taking action against the petitioner as he encroached and was making constructions over the land reserved for abadi without permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Magistrate found that the land originally belonged to petitioner but it was reserved for extension of abadi during consolidation proceedings. and the petitioner was given other land in lieu of it. As the land did not belong to him and it was owned by Gaon Sabha the petitioner was guilty of making constructions over it and was liable to be penalised under Section 45A of the Consolidation Act. Section 45A is penal section. It empowers the competent court to impose a fine not exceeding Rs.1000.00, but the conviction can be for breach of Section 5(1) (C) which runs as follows: (C) "Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation previously attained shall: - (1) " Use his holdings or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or It prohibits a tenure-holder from using his holding to purposes other than agriculture etc. The applicability of the sub-section is confined to tenure-holders. and it is in relation to his holding. Both these terms have been denned in the Consolidation Act. A tenure-holder means a Bhumidhar, sirder, assami and holding means land or parcel of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder either singly or jointly. On the facts found the petitioner was neither a tenure-holder nor, was the land his holding as after allotment of chaks and exchange of possession, either actual or deemed, the petitioner ceased to have any right in it. The order passed by the Magistrate therefore convicting the applicant for breach of Section 5 (1) (C) and the sentence of Rs.200 under Section 45A cannot be maintained. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to consider whether construction over the land in dispute was for an agricultural purpose. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director and the Magistrate I Class are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to its casts.;