ORDER V.G. Oak, J. - These two connected petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of consolidation proceedings. One Kalloo was a tenant of certain plots. Smt. Mithani was his widow. She remarried Barjor. She died in January, 1955. Kalloo's brother's son, Gulab filed in February 1955 a suit against Barjor to recover possession over the land. The suit was decreed by a Munsif. Barjor's appeal was dismissed by a Civil Judge. Barjor has filed a second appeal in this Court. That second appeal is still pending. 2. During the pendency of the second appeal Gulab sold his interest in the land to Ram Shanker on 29-5-1962. Gulab and Barjor filed a compromise before this Court in the second appeal. Consolidation proceedings started in the village. Consequently, the hearing of the second appeal was stayed in this Court. 3. The dispute between Ram Shanker and Barjor was taken up by the Consolidation Officer. He decided that Barjor had acquired sirdari rights. On this footing, Barjor's claim was accepted by the Consolidation Officer. Ram Shanker went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He held that Barjor had not acquired title by adverse possession. On the other hand, Ram Shanker was the holder of the property as transferee from Gulab. Barjor went up in revision from the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The revision was partly allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On the one hand, it was held that Barjor had not acquired title by adverse possession. On the other hand, it was held that the sale in favour of Ram Shankar was invalid. In this way, the claims of both Barjor and Ram Shanker were rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He decided that the holding should be recorded in Gulab's name. 4. Ram Shanker and Barjor are both dissatisfied with this order, dated 19-3-1966 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Barjor has filed C.M. Writ No. 2377 of 1966. Ram Shanker has filed C.M. Writ No. 2560 of 1966. 5. Firstly, I take up writ No. 2377 of 1966 filed by Barjor. The Dy. Director has held that, although Barjor exercised possession over the land that was not adverse possession. This reasoning has been challenged by Mr. R.B. Misra appearing for Barjor. It was urged by Mr. Ram Shanker has filed C.M. Writ No. 2560 of 1966. 5. Firstly, I take up writ No. 2377 of 1966 filed by Barjor. The Dy. Director has held that, although Barjor exercised possession over the land that was not adverse possession. This reasoning has been challenged by Mr. R.B. Misra appearing for Barjor. It was urged by Mr. Misra that Barjor's possession must be adverse to that of Gulab and Ram Shankar. 6. Kalloo's interest passed to his widow Smt. Mithani. Upon her remarriage, succession was governed by Section 36, UP Tenancy Act. The tenancy rights passed on to Kalloo's heir Gulab. The position upon Smt. Mithani's remarriage was, therefore, that Gulab became the tenant of the land. It appears that inspite of Gulab's title to the property possession remained either with Smt. Mithani or with Barjor. The Deputy Director was of the opinion that Barjor exercised possession over the land. The Deputy Director did not specify the period during which Barjor exercised possession. In paragraph 2 of the petition of Barjor it was stated that Barjor remained in adverse possession for more than 25 years. In the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Shankar in Barjor's writ petition no specific reply was made to Barjor's claim about adverse possession for 25 years. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition filed by Ram Shankar it was alleged that Smt. Mithani remained in possession over the land till her death in January 1955. This position was not expressly disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by Barjor. It is not, therefore, certain whether actual possession was with Smt. Mithani or with Barjor. 7. We must remember that Gulab was related to Smt. Mithani. If Smt. Mithani was in possession for some time after her re-marriage, such possession was not necessarily adverse to Gulab. Barjor has not raised any case of adverse possession in favour of Smt. Mithani. Barjor's case has all along been that he himself was in adverse possession for 20 or 25 years. Barjor can, therefore, hardly raise any case of adverse possession by Smt. Mithani. If actual possession was with Smt. Mithani, such possession would not help Barjor in establishing adverse possession as against Gulab. The Deputy Director pointed out that the suit for ejectment was brought by Gulab only one month after the death of Smt. Mithani. Barjor can, therefore, hardly raise any case of adverse possession by Smt. Mithani. If actual possession was with Smt. Mithani, such possession would not help Barjor in establishing adverse possession as against Gulab. The Deputy Director pointed out that the suit for ejectment was brought by Gulab only one month after the death of Smt. Mithani. Both the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director concluded that adverse possession for the requisite period has not been made out by Barjor. That finding is not vitiated by any patent error of law. If Barjor could not establish adverse possession for the requisite period, his claim, necessarily fails. 8. Now I take up writ No. 2560 of 1966 filed by Ram Shankar. The Settlement Officer was satisfied about the transfer dated 29-5-1962 by Gulab in Ram Shankar's favour. The Deputy Director gave two reasons why the transfer cannot be recognised. 9. The first reason is that the transfer was hit by Section 52, T.P. Act. Section 52, T.P. Act lays down that a transfer pending a suit is subject to any decree or order which may be made in the suit. Section 52, T.P. Act does not lay down that a transfer pending litigation is altogether void. All that Barjor can urge u/s 52, T.P. Act is that the transfer dated 29-5-1962 is subject to the decision of the High Court in the second appeal. The High Court has not yet decided the second appeal. So far as consolidation proceedings are concerned, there is no difficulty in recognising the transfer dated 29-5-1962. 10. The main reason given by the Deputy Director is that the transfer was hit by Section 154 of UP Act No. I of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Section 154 lays down that as a result of a transfer by a bhumidhar the total land held by a bhumidhar may not exceed 12 1/2 acres. The Deputy Director has found that as a result of the transfer under consideration Ram Shankar now holds more than 12 1/2 acres of land. 11. Mr. Shambhu Prasad appearing for Ram Shankar contended that even if it is assumed that there was contravention of Section 154 of the Act, it does not mean that the transfer is void. The transfer is merely voidable. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Misra contended that the transfer is void. 12. 11. Mr. Shambhu Prasad appearing for Ram Shankar contended that even if it is assumed that there was contravention of Section 154 of the Act, it does not mean that the transfer is void. The transfer is merely voidable. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Misra contended that the transfer is void. 12. In order to decide whether such a transfer is void or voidable, it is necessary to examine certain provisions of Ch. VIII of the Act. Section 152 of the Act lays down that the interest of a bhumidhar shall be transferable subject to the conditions hereinafter contained in the Chapter. Section 153 provides for transfer by a sirdar within certain limits. Section 154 states: ...no bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer, by sale or gift, any land...where such person shall, as a result of the sale or gift, become entitled to land which...will...exceed 12 1/2 acres in Uttar Pradesh. It is true that according to the finding of the Deputy Director, the transfer in question contravenes Section 154 of the Act. The question remains whether the transfer is void. Section 163 of the Act deals with a transfer in contravention of Section 154. Section 163 states: (1) Where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of the provisions of Section 134, the transferee shall...be liable to ejectment from such holding or part on the suit of the Gaon Samaj which shall thereupon become vacant land.... Section 166 states: Any transfer made by or on behalf of sirdar or asami in contravention of the provisions of this chapter shall be void. It is significant that, although Section 166 lays down that an illegal transfer by a sirdar or asami is void, Section 166 makes no mention about any transfer by a bhumidhar. Section 166 clearly indicates that the Legislature wished to treat an illegal transfer by a bhumidhar on a different footing. Section 189 of the Act states: The interest of a bhumidhar in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished: (a)... ... ... ... (aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act.... According to Clause (aa) of Section 189, the interest of the transferor is extinguished as a consequence of a illegal transfer. ... ... ... (aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act.... According to Clause (aa) of Section 189, the interest of the transferor is extinguished as a consequence of a illegal transfer. It is difficult to see how the interest of a transferor can be extinguished, if the transfer is void altogether. 13. Upon an examination of the provisions of Sections 163, 166 and 189 of the Act, it appears that a transfer in contravention of Section 154 is not void. The transferee is only liable to the penalty laid down in Section 163. Subject to that liability, the transferee becomes the owner of the bhumidhari. 14. So, assuming in the present case that the transfer dated 29-5-1962 contravened Section 154 of the Act, the transfer is not void. Ram Shankar acquired title to the land under that transaction. 15. Mr. R.B. Misra relied upon the compromise in the second appeal and the statement of Gulab to the effect that he has no interest in the land. The compromise appears to have been made after the transfer dated 29-5-1962. After transferring the land in Ram Shankar's favour it was not open to Gulab to enter into a compromise with Barjor. Such a compromise will not bind Ram Shankar. 16. The net result is that, on the one hand Barjor has failed to establish adverse possession, and has not acquired any title to the property. On the other hand, Ram Shankar acquired title under the sale dated 29-5-1962. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was, therefore, right in recognising the claim of Ram Shankar against Barjor. 17. C.M. Writ No. 2377 of 1966 is dismissed with costs to Respondent No. 5. 18. C.M. Writ No. 2560 of 1966 is allowed with costs against Barjor, Respondent No. 2. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19-3-1966 is quashed.