UP Consolidation Of Holdings Act | Delay Caused By Statutory Ban On Land Transfers Doesn't Render Sale Deed Void: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a sale deed executed after the period fixed in a permission order granted under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 cannot be treated as void where the delay in execution was caused by a statutory restriction on the transfer of agricultural land in force at the relevant time. The Court held that mutation could not be...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a sale deed executed after the period fixed in a permission order granted under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 cannot be treated as void where the delay in execution was caused by a statutory restriction on the transfer of agricultural land in force at the relevant time.
The Court held that mutation could not be refused on the ground that such a sale deed was void, as the invalidity of a transfer made without prior permission is curable and does not per se render the transaction void or legally ineffective.
Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 barred a tenure-holder from transferring his holding or any part of it by sale, gift or exchange within a consolidation area without the prior written permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The provision was omitted with effect from 19 February 1991, after which no permission is required for such transfers.
Relying on the decision in Lalta Prasad Srivastava vs. IXth Additional District Judge,Agra, Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,
“Perusal of the judgment rendered in Lalta Prasad Srivastva (supra) fully demonstrates that transfer made in absence of prior permission as provided under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P.C.H. Act does not per se render the transaction void or legally ineffective; rather, the invalidity is curable.”
Respondent No. 4, Mathura Prasad Pandey, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, was the recorded Bhumidhar of Chak No. 70 in Village Gursardi, Mirzapur. He obtained permission from the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 30 June 1972 to sell the chak to the petitioners, subject to the condition that the transfer be made by 29 July 1972. As the transfer of agricultural land was then restricted, the parties instead executed a registered agreement to sell on 15 July 1972 and possession was delivered to the petitioners. Once the restriction was lifted, respondent No. 4 executed the registered sale deed in their favour on 16 February 1973.
When the petitioners applied for mutation, respondent No. 4 objected that the sale deed was void as it had been executed after 29 July 1972. The Consolidation Officer rejected the mutation on 10 May 1977, holding the sale deed void; the appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act was dismissed on 15 September 1977, and the revision under Section 48 was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 5 July 1978. The petitioners approached the High Court.
Petitioners submitted that no permission was needed to transfer a complete, compact chak and that they had applied only by way of abundant caution. It was pleaded that the delay was occasioned by the restriction on transfer and respondent No. 4, having executed the sale deed himself, could not object to mutation of the vendees' names.
The State submitted that the sale deed had been executed in violation of the condition in the permission. It was argued that delivery of possession was not established by any document, and permission was necessary for a transfer during consolidation operations.
Referring to Lalta Prasad Srivastava, the Court held that a transfer made without prior permission is not per se void and the invalidity is curable. In Smt. Sita Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and othersas it had been held that a sale deed executed beyond the period fixed in the permission cannot be held void where the delay was not on account of the vendees' conduct. In Surya Narayan vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation it was held that no permission is required where the whole of the land is transferred.
Applying these, the Court held that permission had been granted but the transfer could not be completed within the fixed period because of the ban then in force. It held that the sale deed was executed on 16 February 1973, once the ban was lifted and in pursuance of the 1972 permission, it could not be treated as void, and mutation could not be refused on that ground.
“It is material to mention that respondent no. 4 himself executed the sale-deed as such, he cannot object the mutation proceedings in order to deprive the petitioners from the property which has been transferred in his favour by respondent no. 4 himself.”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, and directed the Consolidation Officer, Mirzapur to restore the proceeding and record the petitioners' names on the basis of the sale deed dated 16 February 1973 within three months.
Case Title: Mithai Lal And Others v. D.D.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 396