JUDGMENT M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. 2. On 19-3-56 the petitioner filed a suit against opposite party no. 3 under Sec. 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Zamindari Abolition Act'). In brief, the case of the petitioner was that he was a sirdar of the plots in dispute having succeeded his maternal grandmother Smt. Munni who was previously a hereditary tenant of the plots. Opposite party No. 3 denied that the petitioner was the tenant and claimed the tenancy rights or sirdari rights in himself. The first court framed as many as seven issues in the cases and it decided all of them in favour of the petitioner. As a result of these findings it decreed the suit. Opposite party No, 3 went up in appeal against that order and it appears-that during the course of arguments before the Additional Commissioner a fresh point was taken on behalf of opposite party no. 3. This point was that the petitioner had omitted to make a report to the Panchayat Adalat to the effect that the petitioner had succeeded to the tenancy of his maternal grandmother. In the absence of this report, it was urged that the institution of the suit was barred by the provisions of sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act as amended by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, which came into force on 1-7-52. The Additional Commissioner upheld this contention of opposite party no. 3 and without deciding the appeal on merits, he dismissed it only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to report his succession under Sec. 34 (1) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and consequently he could not file the suit. The petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. But the Board of Revenue agreed with the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the second appeal: Hence the present writ. 3. The petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. But the Board of Revenue agreed with the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the second appeal: Hence the present writ. 3. The only question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were justified in holding that the present suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had failed to make a report to the Panchayati Adalat as required by sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 34 of the. U.P. Land Revenue Act. We have carefully read the judgments of both the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and heard learned counsel for the parties. We think that there is an apparent error of law committed by both the revenue courts mentioned above. 4. At the outset it may be stated that in the U. P. Land Revenue Act, before the amendment in 1952, there was Sec. 34 and there was also the sub-section of that section which contained a similar provision of law. Sub-Sec. (5) was to the effect that no revenue court should entertain a suit or application by a person succeeding or otherwise obtaining possession until such persons had made a report as required by sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 34. Under Sec. 34 (1) every person obtaining possession by succession or transfer of any proprietary or ether right in a mahal or part of a mahal, or the profits thereof, or in any specific area therein, which was required to be recorded in the registers prescribed by Cls. (a) to (d) of Sec. 32 of the land Revenue Act was required to report such succession or transfer to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the mahal or any part thereof was situate. Cls. (a) to (d) of Sec. 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act referred to the registers of proprietary rights and the register of tenancy rights was mentioned in Cl. (e) of Sec. 32. The old section, therefore, did not require that a person succeeding to any tenancy right or obtaining transfer of such a right should make a report of the fact to the Tehsildar. The U. P. Land Revenue Act was substantially amended by the Zamindari Abolition Act which came into force on 1-7-52. (e) of Sec. 32. The old section, therefore, did not require that a person succeeding to any tenancy right or obtaining transfer of such a right should make a report of the fact to the Tehsildar. The U. P. Land Revenue Act was substantially amended by the Zamindari Abolition Act which came into force on 1-7-52. The amended Sec. 34 (1) stands as follows:- "34 (1) Every person obtaining possession by succession or transfer of any land in village which is required to be recorded in the register specified in Sec. 32 shall report such succession or transfer to the Panchayati Adalat exercising jurisdiction in the village in which the land is situate." 5. The zamindari rights in agricultural lands have been abolished by the Zamindari Abolition Act. The amended Sec. 32 speaks only of the register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land. In view of the amendment in Sec. 32 and also in Sec. 34 (1) the amended Sec. 34 (1) now applies to the case of tenancy rights only. 6. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the tenancy rights of his maternal grandmother. The question, however, that arises for decision is whether Sec. 34 (1) applies to cases only of succession which opened or the transfers which took place after the section was amended or it applies even to successions or transfers of tenancy rights which had taken place before the amended section came into operation. The section does not purport to be retrospective in its operation and it imposes a duty upon the person who has obtained possession of some tenancy plot by succession or transfer, to report the fact that he has obtained such possession. The acts passed by the Legislatures are generally not taken to be retrospective in operation unless there is something in the Statute to the contrary or unless the change is a change in a minor matter of procedure. We find it difficult to hold that the provisions of Sec. 34 (1) and (5) can be said to be merely procedural matters. Sub-Sec. (1) imposes a duty upon a person obtaining possession by succession or transfer of making a report to the Panchayati Adalat and sub-Sec. (5) prohibits institution of a suit or application if the person has failed to make the report required by Sec. 34 (1). Sub-Sec. (1) imposes a duty upon a person obtaining possession by succession or transfer of making a report to the Panchayati Adalat and sub-Sec. (5) prohibits institution of a suit or application if the person has failed to make the report required by Sec. 34 (1). The matter really affects the right of a person who fails to make a report and the above two provisions cannot be said to be merely procedural in nature. We are consequently of the opinion that the above provisions of law cannot be said to apply to cases of succession or transfer which took place before the sub-sections were amended by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act. The first provision casts a duty upon a person to make a report to the Panchayati Adalat and the second imposes a penalty for the omission to make the report. Sub-Sec. (5) really is penal in nature and reading it along with sub-sec. (1) we do not think it is possible to say that these two provisions were intended to have restrospective operation. As already stated above, the unamended Sec. 34 did not refer to the succession to tenancy rights. Under the unamended section there was no duty cast upon the petitioner to report to the Tehsildar that he had succeeded to the tenancy rights of his maternal grand mother. 7. We may mention here that according to the findings of the revenue courts, Smt. Munni, the maternal grandmother of the petitioner died on the 6th December 1948. The law as it stood on that date did not require the petitioner to make a report of his having succeeded Smt. Munni. Such a provision was introduced for the first time after the lapse of more than three and a half years. The subsequent change in the law did not make it obligatory on every body who had acquired tenancy rights by succession or transfer to make a report to the Panchayati Adalat of that fact, irrespective of the period that might have elapsed since they acquired the rights. Such an interpretation would make the provisions very unreasonable and that could not have been the intention of the Legislature. Such an interpretation would make the provisions very unreasonable and that could not have been the intention of the Legislature. We consequently hold that the provisions of Sec. 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, as amended by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, are applicable only to cases of transfer or succession which took place after the date of the amendment. The Board of Revenue itself has taken the above view in a case reported in Neemar v. Bhagelu, 1958 A.L.J. R. (Rev. Sec.) 203. 8. The second point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be equally unanswerable. His contention is that Sec. 34 (1) requires a person to make a report only after he has obtained possession of the tenancy land by succession or transfer. The final fact which imposes a duty of making the report is his obtaining possession of ,the tenancy land. We have already quoted the provisions of Sec. 34 (1) and a reading of those provisions clearly shows that the duty of making the report comes into operation only after a person, who has succeeded or has obtained a transfer of the land, has actually obtained possession of it as a result of the succession or transfer. In the present case the undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was a minor when he succeeded to the tenancy rights of his widowed grandmother and continued to be a minor till the date the suit was filed. The suit was for acquiring possession of the land in suit which the petitioner has obtained as a result of his succeeding to the rights of his maternal grandmother. Not having obtained possession of the land, no duty was imposed upon him of making a report to the Panchayati Adalat under Sec. 34 (1) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner should be taken to have obtained constructive possession from opposite party no. 3. But the provisions of Sec. 34 (1) do not seem to refer to constructive possession by persons of land in which they have merely tenancy rights. 9. For the reasons given above we think that this writ petition should be allowed. 3. But the provisions of Sec. 34 (1) do not seem to refer to constructive possession by persons of land in which they have merely tenancy rights. 9. For the reasons given above we think that this writ petition should be allowed. We accordingly direct the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment of the Additional Commissioner of Faizabad dated the 18th October 1957 and of the Board of Revenue dated the 30th August 1958. The result of the quashing of the above two judgments would be that Appeal no. 389 of 1956-57 Rahim v. Suraj Bali shall be deemed still to be pending in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad. That appeal is consequently to be disposed of by the Additional Commissioner on the merits. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of this petition from opposite party no. 3.