ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - Gaon Sahha, Saliri, district Saharanpur, executed leases in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners made applications for mutation of their names in the revenue records before the Consolidation Officer because the land in dispute at that time was under consolidation operations. The Gaon Sabha did not file any objection, but the respondents, nos. 3 to 6, contested the applications. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the application for mutation on the finding that the leases were executed in contravention of the rules laying down the procedure for granting on lease, Gaon Samaj land. The petitioners went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer held that the leases were validly executed. He directed that the applicant's names be recorded as Sirdars over the plots covered by the leases. The respondents filed a revision. 2. The Deputy Director Consolidation held that as the leases were executed during the consolidation operations, the permission of the Settlement Officer u/S. 5 (c) (ii) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act was necessary. No such permission was obtained. The leases were void. He also held that it was not fully proved that the prescribed procedure had been followed while granting the leases. For both these reasons he dismissed the applications for mutation. 3. S. 198 (3) of the ZA and LR Act confers jurisdiction on the Assistant Collectors, inter alia, to cancel an allotment made by the Land Management Committee in contravention of the rules. No such proceedings were taken. The lease to the petitioners by the Gaon Sabha has not been cancelled as yet. U/S. 198, sub S. (3) of the Act when the lease is cancelled, the right, title and interest of the allottee comes to an end and the interest reverts to the Gaon Sabha. Till an allotment is cancelled, the right, title and interest remains with the allottee and has to be recognised. This provision would show that simply because the Gaon Sabha executed the lease in contravention of the rules the lease would not become void. It remains liable to be cancelled. Till it is cancelled by the appropriate authority, no proceedings relating to its validity can be gone into in the present proceedings of mutation. Further, the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment has been conferred on the Assistant Collector. The same jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Consolidation Officer. It remains liable to be cancelled. Till it is cancelled by the appropriate authority, no proceedings relating to its validity can be gone into in the present proceedings of mutation. Further, the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment has been conferred on the Assistant Collector. The same jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Consolidation Officer. It was, therefore, not open to the authorities below to go into the question whether the lease had been executed in breach of any rules. 4. The second finding of the Deputy Director Consolidation is equally misconceived. The UP Consolidation of Holdings Act defines a tenure holder to be a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or an Asami. In view of this definition no fourth category of person can be included in the term 'tenure holder'. Under the ZA and LR Act land vested in the Gaon Sabha by the notification issued u/S. 117 of the Act. By such vesting the Gaon Sabha does not become tenure bolder. Simply because the Gaon Sabha is entered in the revenue papers, it cannot be treated as a tenure holder within the meaning of S. 3 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As such a transfer by the Gaon Sabha by way of lease will not be within the purview of the provisions of S. 5 (c) (ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, because it governs transfers by tenure holders alone. 5. S. 5 (c) (ii) relates to a transfer of holdings by way of sale, gift or exchange. A lease will not be either of these three kinds of transfers. Provisions of S. 5 (c) (ii) are not applicable to all the transfers but only to three kinds of transfers. A lease is not a transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange. It is a different kind of transfer. In sale, gift or exchange complete title of the transferor passes, but in a lease the lessor retains proprietary interest with himself. A lease, therefore, cannot be equated with a sale, gift or exchange. S. 5 (c) (ii) of the Act will not be applicable to a lease. 6. The applications for mutation made by the petitioners were entitled to be allowed. The Deputy Director was in error in rejecting them. 7. The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 5-12-1968 is quashed. The petitioners would get their costs from the contesting respondents. Petition allowed K/JC