ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member Appeal Nos. 11, 12 and 13/IX-I/56 arise out of a common order passed by the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, in his corresponding Revenue Cases Nos. 119 and 118/IX-I/53-54 and 365/IX-I/ 54-55, respectively. The points that arise for consideration in all these cases being identical, this order will govern all the aforesaid appeals. During the course of Nistar inquiry the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner came to examine certain transactions of land made by the ex-proprietor of village Tikrapara in favour of his close relations such as sons, nephews and grandsons. After inquiry the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the transactions were either bogus or invalid or otherwise unenforceable. Barring, therefore, certain transactions, which are noted in list B enclosed with the order under appeal, he directed that the lands covered by the leases should vest in the State as per list C enclosed with his order. The contention of the appellants is that they were valid tenants on the date of vesting and their claims to the disputed lands are covered by section 45 (1) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. For the sake of convenience I would classify the transactions in question into two categories as follows: Transactions made by the ex-proprietor after 16-3-50. Nature of Area Age (Major transactions. Date (acreage) In favour of or Minor) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Sale in pro- 26-3-51 18.11 Bulakilal Pujari Major prietary righti 2. Lease 12-10-50 9.84 Shri Gopal Pujari Major. 3. -do- 9- 3-51 11.40 Shri Ramgopal Sharma Major. 4. -do- 12-10-50 7.32 Shri Ram Gopal Major. 5. Sale in pro- 1- 2-51 1.80 Ravindra Prakash Minor. prietary rights. 6. -do- 1-2-51 2.10 Govind Prakash Minor. II.-Transactions made before 16-3-50. Category A. 7. Lease 21-11-49 61.49 Bulakilal Pujari Major. 8. -do- 18-11-49 30.01 Shri Gopal Sharma Major. 9. -do- 18-11-49 45.68 Ramgopal Sharma Major. 10. -do- 1S-11-49 52.14 Shyamkumari Bai Major. Category B. 11. Lease 21-11-49 6.75 Ravindra Prakash Minor. 12. -do- 18-11-9 12.62 Govind Prakash Minor. 13. -do- 21-11-9 1.79 Krishan Prakash Minor. 14. -do- 19-11-49 10.59 Ravindra Prakash Minor. 15. -do- 6- 3-50 44.72 Ravindra Prakash Minor. The transactions in category I above, suffer from the defect that no declaration in respect of them was obtained by the appellants or the ex-proprietor as required u/s 6 (2) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. 13. -do- 21-11-9 1.79 Krishan Prakash Minor. 14. -do- 19-11-49 10.59 Ravindra Prakash Minor. 15. -do- 6- 3-50 44.72 Ravindra Prakash Minor. The transactions in category I above, suffer from the defect that no declaration in respect of them was obtained by the appellants or the ex-proprietor as required u/s 6 (2) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. The learned lower Court has no doubt discussed the matter but it has to be pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the bona fide of the transactions unless an application to that effect was made either by the transferor or by the transferee u/s 6 (2) Ibid which reads as follows: 6 (2). Where on the application of the transferor or the transferee, the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that any transfer of property referred to in sub-section (1) was made by a proprietor in good faith and in the ordinary course of village management, he may declare that the transfer shall not be void after the date of vesting. It is obvious that the necessity of an application for a declaration u/s 6 (2) ibid is a pie-requisite and it is not competent for a Collector to act suo moto in such a matter. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants made any move to get the required declaration. Transactions under Category above would, therefore, be deemed to be covered by section 6 (1) Ibid and held void as they were effected after 16-3-50. It is obvious that the necessity of an application for a declaration u/s 6 (2) ibid is a pie-requisite and it is not competent for a Collector to act suo moto in such a matter. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants made any move to get the required declaration. Transactions under Category above would, therefore, be deemed to be covered by section 6 (1) Ibid and held void as they were effected after 16-3-50. With regard to Category II it would be seen that they are further divisible into two parts, those made in favour of majors (category A) and those in favour of minors (Catagory B). Transactions under Category above would, therefore, be deemed to be covered by section 6 (1) Ibid and held void as they were effected after 16-3-50. With regard to Category II it would be seen that they are further divisible into two parts, those made in favour of majors (category A) and those in favour of minors (Catagory B). With regard to Category B i. e., leases in favour of minors, it has been held by us in Rajendra Kumar v. State of M. P. Appeal No. 28/IX-I/56 decided on 20-12-57 1958 M P L J 220 that the same are invalid and cannot be given effect to in law as they conveyed no title to minors. The transactions covered by Category II, part B, cannot, therefore, be recognized and it cannot be held that the minors were valid tenants on the date of vesting. We are now left with the four transactions mentioned in Category II, Part A, above which were effected in favour of majors before 16-3-50. These transactions were made by registered deeds and in most cases the transferred lands were duly recorded by the patwari in khasra in the name of the transferees. Rents were also paid to the ex-Malguzar for the period before the date of vesting. Subject to my observations below, I do not see how these transactions can be discarded. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has labored hard to show that the transactions were intended to defeat the object of the M. P. A. P. R. Act inasmuch as the disputed lands were transferred to avoid their being vested in the State. He has laid great stress on the fact that the transferees are very close relations of the expropriator and that most of the land had not been brought under cultivation showing thereby they were not in possession of the appellants on the date of vesting. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with the views of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. It cannot be denied that the expropriator had the right to give out unoccupied land on lease and create tenancies on them or on his khudkast lands. The mere fact that the transfers were made in favour of his relations cannot make the transactions void. It cannot be denied that the expropriator had the right to give out unoccupied land on lease and create tenancies on them or on his khudkast lands. The mere fact that the transfers were made in favour of his relations cannot make the transactions void. The Board has, in this respect, consistently followed the decision in Sumitrabai v. State 1955 NLJ 354 namely, that there is no bar for a landlord to confer tenancy rights on his co-sharers or on his other relations. The provisions of section 6 of the M. P. A. P. R. Act go to show that under the scheme of the Act it was not intended to disturb the transactions that had already taken effect before 16-3-50. Of course, it is true that a transaction, even though effected before 16-3-50, is questionable if it suffers from other legal defects such as non-registration of the transfer-deed, unenforceability of the transaction, fraud or lack of title etc. Obviously, section 6 Ibid does not and cannot validate that is ab-initio invalid. Subject to these observations, I do not think a transaction effected before 16-3-50 can be questioned on the ground that it was not made bona fide in the interest of village management. In the instant cases, I am unable to see how the disputed transactions can be said to have been made in violation of the provisions of either the Contract Act or the Transfer of Property Act. The consideration of expropriator's motive is hardly relevant unless it is shown that the transaction was a fraudulent one. It appears to me that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner was mostly influenced by the fact that the transactions were in favour of the transferor's close relations and thereby he had intended to retain from vesting the grass lands in his possession. This view is neither correct nor reasonable. As a result of the transactions the transferees would become tenants of the State and the possession of the land would be enjoyed by them in their own rights as occupancy tenants. The entities of the transferor and the transferees are distinct in law and it would be meaningless to say that even after the transfer, the land would be retained in the possession of the ex-proprietor. Hence-forward the lessees would have direct relations with the State and the expropriator can have no jurisdiction over the land. The entities of the transferor and the transferees are distinct in law and it would be meaningless to say that even after the transfer, the land would be retained in the possession of the ex-proprietor. Hence-forward the lessees would have direct relations with the State and the expropriator can have no jurisdiction over the land. Thus the transactions are neither bogus nor Benami. Similarly it cannot be said that any fraud was committed on the State. The exproprietor did what the law permitted him to do as he was fully competent to create tenancies on unoccupied grass-land. Supposing instead of the present appellants the lessees were persons unrelated to the ex-proprietor, could it then be said that the so-called fraud was not committed. It may be that the objection of the ex-proprietor in transferring the land to his relations in preference to others was to benefit persons in whom he was interested. But then there is no law to say that the ex-proprietor could not lease-out the land in favour of his relations and thus benefit them. There is no suggestion that the rent fixed in the lease-deeds is below the standard rate and that if the lessees are recognised the State is liable to put to loss till such time as the new settlement takes place. The fact that the action of the ex-proprietor, though legal, resulted in preventing the vesting of grass-land in the State cannot be termed fraudulent by any stretch of imagination. Prior to 16-3-50 there was no restriction on such transactions and the action of the ex-proprietor was within his lawful authority. I am, therefore, of the view that to say that the transactions were bogus or benami or fraudulent is to use one's imagination too far. Cultivation not being the only test of possession, and there being no evidence that the disputed lands were in the possession of persons other than the appellants, I would hold that the possession must be deemed to follow the title and since the patwari had recorded the names in the khasra and rents were also charged accordingly, the appellants in category II-A were valid tenants and their claims are covered by section 45 (1) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. There are, however, certain features of the case noted by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner ( paras. There are, however, certain features of the case noted by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner ( paras. 20 to 25 of his order ) where it has been pointed out by him that certain khasra numbers had been repeated in different leases. These khasra numbers are 601, 606, 609, 682, 653, 183/1, 183/2 and 183 /3 and the transferees of these numbers respectively are Ram Gopal, Shri Gopal, Govind Prakash (minor), Ravindra Prakash (minor), Bulakilal. The transactions relating to these khasra numbers would, in any case, be invalid either on ground of the minority of some of the transferees or on account of the fact that some of them were effected after 16-3-50 and had not been validated by the Deputy Commissioner u/s 6 (2) M. P. A. P. R. Act. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has observed that in some cases only part of khasra numbers were transferred and since these parts are not identifiable by metes and bounds, no tenancy could be created on such indefinite area. In this connection he has elaborately dealt with the meaning of the words 'holding' and 'occupancy tenant'. It is not necessary for me to go into the correctness of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner's argument. As I see it, the lease-deeds in question did not, for example say that " 3 acres out of K. No. 116 is leased out to such and such persons " which, no doubt, would have been indefinite or un-ascertainable. These leases specify exact area out of a given khasra number. For instance, by virtue of lease-deed dated 21-11-49, 61.49 acres out of K. No. 116 has been given out on lease to appellant Bulakilal. Similarly, 1.80 acres and 10.89 acres have been given from K. Nos. 553 and 105 to Shri Gopal and Ravindra Prakash. The khasra numbers effected by part-transactions are 116,553 and 105 and the appellants affected are Bulakilal, Shri Gopal and Ravindra Prakash. Barring appellant Bulakilal, the rest were minors on the date of lease and these transfers would not be valid in respect of these areas for reasons of their minority as stated above. The khasra numbers effected by part-transactions are 116,553 and 105 and the appellants affected are Bulakilal, Shri Gopal and Ravindra Prakash. Barring appellant Bulakilal, the rest were minors on the date of lease and these transfers would not be valid in respect of these areas for reasons of their minority as stated above. In regard to Bulakilal, it may be observed that the very fact that the area leased-out has been mentioned in definite acreage goes to show that the patwari, who made an entry in the record, was made aware of the portion of K. No. 116 that was allowed to Bulakilal for otherwise he could not have been able to mention exact acreage in the khasra. The identity of the area can further be confirmed by the parties and should not present any practical difficulty. In any case, I do not consider that the leases can be invalidated on this ground alone. To sum up, the claim of appellants Bulakilal, Shri Gopal, Ram Gopal and Shyam Kumari Bai in regard to the land covered by leases mentioned at serial No. 7 to 10 in para. 4 above would be covered by the provisions of section 45 (1) M. P. A. P. R. Act and they would be entitled, with respect to the aforesaid land, to continue to be the tenants of the State ( now Bhumidhari) with effect from 1-4-51. The appeals in respect of all other claims fail and are rejected accordingly. Appeals are partly allowed as above. Final Result : Allowed