ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - These two writ petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution arise lout of consolidation proceedings and are directed against the same order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to the two petitions are that one Jiwa Ram father of opposite party No. 4 and father-in-law of opposite party No. 5 had two sons Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra. Chhabi Ram's widow is Smt. Ram Katori opposite party No. 5. Jiwa Ram died in the year 1920 leaving behind his two sons Ram Chandra and Chhabi Ram. Chhabi Ram died in the year 1925 leaving his widow Smt. Ram Katori and Ram Chandra his brother. After the death of Chhabi Ram it appears that a dispute arose between Ram Chandra and Smt. Ram Katori. This dispute appears to have been settled by execution of an agreement dated 12th February 1927 by which Smt. Ram Katori was allowed maintenance of Rs. 360/- per annum cash and was further allowed to cultivate certain land. The above mentioned agreement was later on superseded by a new agreement in the year 1936 and on 10th February 1936 another agreement was executed by which Suit. Ram Katori became entitled to Rs. 125/- cash and she was given right to cultivate Khata No. 2 which is in dispute in the present case. By this agreement she was also given the right to sublet the land comprised in Khata No. 2 if she so desired. The agreement arrived at between the parties mentioned above is annexure 'A' to the petition. 3. After the execution of this agreement it appears that Smt. Ram Katori filed suits in the civil court for the payment of maintenance allowance which were decreed and Ram Chandra was made to pay the amount decreed. Khata No. 2 which was given to Smt. Ram Katori for cultivation in lieu of maintenance allowance consisted of sir and khudkasht plots. On the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act these plots of Khata No. 2 were recorded as the sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. Smt. Ram Katori obtained bhumidhari Sanad in respect of this khata. Khata No. 2 which was given to Smt. Ram Katori for cultivation in lieu of maintenance allowance consisted of sir and khudkasht plots. On the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act these plots of Khata No. 2 were recorded as the sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. Smt. Ram Katori obtained bhumidhari Sanad in respect of this khata. Having obtained bhumidhari Sanad she executed sale deed in respect of a part of this Khata on 30th July 1954 in favour of her son-in-law Krishna Murari the Petitioner and thereafter she executed a gift deed dated 25th March 1955 in respect of the remaining part of Khata No. 2 in favour of the same Krishna Murari with the result that Krishna Murari the Petitioner came to be recorded as bhumidhar of the entire khata No. 2 aforesaid. 4. In the beginning of 1965 consolidation proceedings started in the village in question. Ram Chandra opposite party No. 4 filed an objection in regard to Khata No. 2 claiming that the said Khata was his bhumidhari property and the name of the Petitioner Krishna Murari was wrongly recorded which should be expunged. 5. There were two other Khatas Nos. 24 and 61 in village Bajidpur over which Ram Chandra was recorded as the tenure holder. Smt. Ram Katori claimed cotenureholder's right in the two Khatas on the basis of succession to her husband Chhabi Ram. The dispute between the parties in respect of the three Khatas was considered by the consolidation officer who rejected the claim of Smt. Ram Katori based on succession and held that Chhabi Ram died as a member of the joint Hindu family along with Ram Chandra in the year 1925 and the entire family property went to Ram Chandra by survivorship. He held that the property given to Smt. Ram Katori by the agreement dated 11th February 1936 was in lieu of maintenance. According to the Consolidation Officer the name of Smt. Ram Katori should have been recorded as an Asami in view of Section 11 of the UP ZA and LR Act but she was wrongly recorded as sirdar. He held that the property given to Smt. Ram Katori by the agreement dated 11th February 1936 was in lieu of maintenance. According to the Consolidation Officer the name of Smt. Ram Katori should have been recorded as an Asami in view of Section 11 of the UP ZA and LR Act but she was wrongly recorded as sirdar. At the same time he opined that since Ram Chandra had accepted compensation on the footing that the land in dispute were in possession of Smt. Ram Katori and he filed no objections to the statement of compensation and received the same he did not become bhumidhar of the property in dispute. He further found that the claim of Ram Chandra was barred by time in view of the sale deed and gift deed having executed by Smt. Ram Katori which were not got cancelled by Ram Chandra. He held that Ram Chandra's right as a tenureholder got extinguished by lapse of time. At the same time he held that possession of Krishna Murari Lal over the land in dispute was permissive hence he could not claim sirdari right on the basis of his adverse possession. Having arrived at that conclusion Ram Chandra's objection was rejected. He also rejected the claim of Smt. Ram Katori in respect of Khatas Nos. 24 and 61, which she had claimed on the basis of succession to her husband. 6. Aggrieved with the decision of the Consolidation Officer three appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation one by Ram Chandra and two by Smt. Ram Katori. All the three appeals were decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Etah who by his judgment dated 5th June 1965 dismissed all the appeals and affirmed the decision of the Consolidation Officer. 7. Three revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation: two by Smt. Ram Katori and one by Ram Chandra. Two revisions filed by Smt. Ram Katori were dismissed and the revision filed by Ram Chandra was allowed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the following order: Revision filed by Ram Chandra is allowed. As discussed above Smt. Ram Katori has only life interest in the property left by her deceased husband. Krishna Murari shall have only rights to enjoy the land covered by the aforementioned two deeds as long as Smt. Ram Katori is alive. As discussed above Smt. Ram Katori has only life interest in the property left by her deceased husband. Krishna Murari shall have only rights to enjoy the land covered by the aforementioned two deeds as long as Smt. Ram Katori is alive. The question of devolution of this property shall be finally decided at the time of death of Smt. Ram Katori or Ram Chandra as determined in the later deed. It shall remain open for the time being. The appellate order shall, therefore, be modified to the extent that Krishna Murari shall be deemed to have only interest in the land covered by Khata No. 2 as long as Smt. Ram Katori is alive. The decision of the Dy. Director of Consolidation in respect of Khatas Nos. 24 and 61 has not been challenged before me. The only khata which is in dispute in the present writ petition is khata No. 2. 8. Aggrieved with this order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation the above two writ petitions have been filed. Writ Petition No. 234 of 1966 has been filed by Krishna Murari Lal by which he has prayed for the quashing of the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and another writ petition No. 240 of 1966 has been filed by Ram Chandra by which he has challenged the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation inasmuch as he has left the question of title to be determined on the death of Smt. Ram Katori or Ram Chandra as the case may be. 9. It is contended of behalf of Krishna Murari Lal that the decision of the Dy. Director of Consolidation holding Smt. Ram Katori to be life estate bolder is patently erroneous. It was submitted that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not correctly interpreted the agreement dated 10th February 1936. According to the learned Counsel by this agreement maintenance allowance to the extent of Rs. 125/- was given to Smt. Ram Katori and she was given an independent right in the cultivatory plots allotted to her. Learned Counsel has submitted that in the agricultural plots which were separately allotted to her she became the full owner thereof and was competent to transfer the same in favour of the Petitioner. 125/- was given to Smt. Ram Katori and she was given an independent right in the cultivatory plots allotted to her. Learned Counsel has submitted that in the agricultural plots which were separately allotted to her she became the full owner thereof and was competent to transfer the same in favour of the Petitioner. Alternatively it was argued that even if Smt. Ram Katori did not become the bhumidhar of the plots consisting of Khata No. 2 and became Asami according to the case of Ram Chandra since she executed sale and gift in respect thereof in the year 1954 and 1955 and the Petitioner continued in possession thereof till the date of the start of the consolidation proceeding the Petitioner acquired right of a sirdar u/s 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act and the right of Ram Chandra of the bhumidhar got extinguished. 10. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of Ram Chandra the Petitioner of writ No. 240 of 1966 that on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act Ram Chandra became bhumidhar and Smt. Ram Katori became an Asami. The Dy. Director erred in not giving a declaration of bhumidhari right in favour of Ram Chandra. According to the learned Counsel no question of declaration of bhumidhari right can be said to arise after the death of Ram Katori or the Petitioner (Ram Chandra). 11. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties who have referred me to the various provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act and I am of opinion that Writ No. 234 of 1966 filed by Krishna Murari should be dismissed and Writ No. 240 of 1966 filed by Ram Chandra be allowed. 12. On the facts stated above and the arguments addressed before this Court the points for determination in these cases are: (1) What was the status of Smt. Ram Katori on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act in respect of Khata No. 2 in dispute? (2) What is the effect of the transfer made by Smt. Ram Katori in the years 1954 and 1955 in respect of this Khata on the right of the parties since it remained unchallenged till the date of the start of the consolidation proceedings? 13. (2) What is the effect of the transfer made by Smt. Ram Katori in the years 1954 and 1955 in respect of this Khata on the right of the parties since it remained unchallenged till the date of the start of the consolidation proceedings? 13. Re : 1--Admittedly the property in dispute which is sir and khudkasht belonged to Jiwa Ram. On which death it devolved on his two sons Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra. Chabbi Ram died in the year 1925. The point fur decision is as to whether Chhabi Ram died as a member of a joint Hindu family along with Ram Chandra or did he die as a separated member. The agreements executed in the year 1927 and 1936 put this matter beyond doubt that Chhabi Ram died as a member of a joint Hindu family along with Ram Chandra. The Consolidation Officer accepted this position and the other two consolidation authorities have affirmed this decision and I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Consolidation Officer which has been affirmed by the other two authorities. It is further clear that in the year 1925 when Chhabi Ram died as a member of the joint Hindu family the family property which included Khata No. 2 devolved on Ram Chandra by survivorship and Scat. Ram Katori had only a right of maintenance in the family property. When by the agreements referred to above certain cash amount and agricultural plots were given to Smt. Ram Katori it has to be accepted that is was given to her in lieu of maintenance. This is the view of the Consolidation Officer which has not been set aside by any authority and I also endorse it. On the acceptance of this finding Section 11 of the UP ZA and LR Act is at once attracted. Section 11 reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 where sir or khudkasht has been allotted by the sir or khudkasht-holder thereof to a person in lieu of maintenance allowance, such person shall be deemed to be the asami thereof entitled to hold the land for so long as the right of maintenance allowance subsists. 14. It is argued on behalf of Krishna Murari that Ram Chandra paid more than Rs. 14. It is argued on behalf of Krishna Murari that Ram Chandra paid more than Rs. 250/- as land revenue and since the sir and khudkasht of this Khata had been given to Smt. Ram Katori it can be deemed to have been left to her by virtue of Section 10 of the UP ZA and LR Act Smt. Ram Katori became sirdar of the property in dispute. I am unable to accept this contention. Firstly, a fair reading of the agreement of the year 1936 clearly shows that the sir and khudkasht plots were given to Smt. Ram Katori in lieu of maintenance. It cannot be said that it was let out to her. Secondly there is no proof on the record that Ram Chandra paid more than Rs. 250/- as annual land revenue. Even assuming that he paid more than Rs. 250/- as land revenue the land had not been let out to Smt. Ram Katori as such Section 10 of the Act is inapplicable. Further we find from Section 11 of the UP ZA and LR Act that it starts with a non-obstante Clause (notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10). If by virtue of Section 11 a person become an asami his right as an asami has to be accepted even though he might have become a sirdar u/s 10 of the UP ZA and LR Act. On the facts of this case I am satisfied that Smt. Ram Katori having got the sir and khudkasht plots in lieu of maintenance became an asami on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act. The decision of the Consolidation Officer which was affirmed by the Settlement Officer (C) and the Dy. Director of Consolidation on this point in my opinion is correct. Once it is held that on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act Smt. Ram Katori has become an asami she cannot become a bhumidhar by depositing ten times of the rent as was done in this case. u/s 134 of the UP ZA and LR Act it is only a sirdar who can obtain a bhumidhari Sanad. Once it is held that Smt. Ram Katori became only an asami on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act she could not become a bhumidhar by virtue of depositing ten times of the rent. u/s 134 of the UP ZA and LR Act it is only a sirdar who can obtain a bhumidhari Sanad. Once it is held that Smt. Ram Katori became only an asami on the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act she could not become a bhumidhar by virtue of depositing ten times of the rent. Mere obtaining of bhumidhari Sanad cannot confer bhumidhari right on her. Thus she was only an asami and not competent to sell or gift the property. At the same time she was entitled to continue in possession till her life time in lieu of maintenance as an asami. 15. Re : 2--So far as the second point under consideration is concerned Smt. Ram Katori being an asami of the plots in dispute had no right to make a transfer of it. She actually made a transfer by two deeds, one a sale and another a gift. They two transfers were void transfers in view of Section 153 read with Section 166 of the UP ZA and LR Act. It is contended on behalf of Krishna Murari that since these transfers were void and Krishna Murari continued in possession from 1954 upto 1965 he acquired sirdari right by virtue of Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Before Section 210 is applied this has to be seen whether a suit in the circumstances of the present case could be filed u/s 209 of the Act. Section 209 read as follows: (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the pre visions of the law for the time being in force, and-- (a) where the land form part of the holding of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami without the consent of such bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, (b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit, in cases referred to in Clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar, sirdar or asami concerned and in cases referred to in Clause (b) above, of the Gaon Samaj and shall also be liable to pay damages. (2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party. (2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party. This section would show that in order to attract the applicability of this section two ingredients have to be fulfilled. Firstly, the possession must be otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force and the second condition to be fulfilled is that the possession must be without the consent of bhumidhar, sirdar or asami as the case may be. In the instant case the first condition appears to be fulfilled, but it cannot be said that the second condition is also fulfilled. Smt. Ram Katori who Was an asami was entitled to continue in possession of the property as an asami in her life time gave possession to the Petitioner Krishna Murari who is no other than her son-in-law. In the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that Krishna Murari came in possession over the disputed plots without the concept of Smt. Ram Katori. It has not been proved that Krishna Murari was in possession without the consent of Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra having given the plots in dispute to Smt. Ram Katori for her life time and Smt. Ram Katori having been given the right to cultivate herself or let out to others was indifferent as to who occupied the land during the life time of Smt. Ram Katori. It would not be proper to hold that Krishna Murari came in possession without the consent of Ram Chandra without any proof thereof furnished by Krishna Murari. Krishna Murari being the son-in-law of Smt. Ram Katori Ram Chandra can safely be assumed to have considered his possession on behalf of Smt. Ram Katori. The second condition necessary for the applicability of Section 209 being absent in the present case in my opinion Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel for Krishna Murari drew my attention to a statement contained in the commentary of the UP ZA and LR Act by Sri Justice S.D. Singh wherein he has stated as follows: But the provisions of this section have to be read along with those of Section 210. Learned Counsel for Krishna Murari drew my attention to a statement contained in the commentary of the UP ZA and LR Act by Sri Justice S.D. Singh wherein he has stated as follows: But the provisions of this section have to be read along with those of Section 210. Under Clause (i) of the section where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar, the trespasser will on the expiry of the period of limitation for his ejectment become a sirdar and the right, title and interest of an asami, if any, on such land shall get extinguished. It will thus be observed that the interest of the bhumidhar or sirdar and that of the asami will get extinguished simultaneously. There is no other clause in that section to specify in what manner the rights are to be adjusted where an asami holding under a bhumidhar or a sirdar fail to eject the trespasser. Under this Act, therefore, the obligation to eject the trespasser has primarily been laid on the bhumidhar or the sirdar of the holding to whom belongs and it is he who should file the suit and eject the trespasser, even though the holding may have been leased by him. 16. The above statement of fact cannot help the learned Counsel inasmuch as I have already held above that Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act was not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. Learned Counsel for Krishna Murari also relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge on Kallu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1969 RD 37. But this authority has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. The contention of the learned Counsel that as soon as Krishna Murari entered into possession over the plots in dispute by virtue of void transfer his possession should be considered to be adverse and without the consent of the landholder does not appeal to me. Whether a person is in possession with the consent or without the consent is a question of fact to be determined to the facts of a particular case. Whether a person is in possession with the consent or without the consent is a question of fact to be determined to the facts of a particular case. Possession may be otherwise than in accordance with the law but may not be without consent as in the instant case and unless it is proved that the possession is without consent Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act will not be applicable. This view of mine is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Rama 1969 AWR 674 . Now we have to see as to what is the effect of transfer made by an asami in contravention of the UP ZA and LR Act. Section 166 of the UP ZA and LR Act which is appropriate reads as follows: Any transfer, made by or on behalf of a sirdar or asemi in contravention of the provisions of this Chapter shall be void. In view of this section the transfer made by Smt. Ram Katori in favour of Krishna Murari has to be accepted as void. 17. Section 167 deals with consequences of void transfers. It reads as follows: (1) Where a sirdar or asami has made any transfer in contravention of the provision of this Act, the transferee and every person who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or part of the holding shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha, or the landholder, as the case may be. (2) A decree for ejectment Under Sub-section (1) may direct the ejectment of the sirdar or asami from the whole or part of the holding as the Court may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, direct. 18. In view of this section since Smt. Ram Katori executed a sale deed as well as a gift deed she along with the transferee, became liable to ejectment. A suit u/s 167 of the UP ZA and LR Act could only be filed within six years of the date of transfer vide serial No. 20 of appendix III appended to the rules under the UP ZA and LR Act. A suit u/s 167 of the UP ZA and LR Act could only be filed within six years of the date of transfer vide serial No. 20 of appendix III appended to the rules under the UP ZA and LR Act. Ram Chandra not having instituted a suit within the prescribed period u/s 167 would be deemed to have condoned the illegal transfer and he would not be entitled to take the benefit of this section by getting the ejectment of Smt. Ram Katori or Krishna Murari. Thus on account of this lapse of Ram Chandra, Krishna Murari will be entitled to continue in possession till the life time of Smt. Ram Katori. If suit for ejectment had been filed and it has been decreed it is only then that the interest of an asami would have been extinguished as provided u/s 168 of the UP ZA and LR Act which reads as follows: Upon ejectment in a suit u/s 167, all the rights and interests of the sirdar or asami in the holding or part thereof or in any improvements made therein or to get compensation for such improvements shall be extinguished. Mere transfer by an asami does not extinguish his rights. His rights are only extinguished on ejectment u/s 167. There is no provision under the UP ZA and LR Act for extinguishing the right of an asami on mere illegal transfer as has been provided for in the case of bhumidhar and sirdar by Sections 189 (aa) and 190 (cc) of the UP ZA and LR Act. An asami's interest is only extinguished on his ejectment by virtue of Section 168 of the UP ZA and LR Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for Krishna Murari that the interest of Ram Chandra got extinguished by virtue of Section 189(aa). I am not prepared to accept this submission on two grounds: Firstly u/s 189(aa) which reads as follows: The interest of a bhumidhar in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished-- * * * * (aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act; * * * * It contemplates a transfer or letting out in contravention of the provisions of this Act by the bhumidhar. In the present case Ram Chandra the bhumidhar has made no transfer in contravention of the provisions of this Act, therefore, Section 189(aa) is not applicable. Secondly this Section 189(aa) has been brought on the statute book by an amendment of the year 1958 and this Court has held that Section 189(aa) is not retrospective vide Parmanand v. Board of Revenue, UP Allahabad 1966 AWR 32 and Lal Behari Ram Kandu v. The Board of Revenue 1967 AWR 161 . The transfers in the present case were made in the years 1954 and 1955 as such Section 189(aa) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. To sum up the effect of the invalid transfers made in 1954 and 1955 which remained unchallenged till the date of the start of the consolidation is that the transferee, became immune from ejectment till the life time of Smt. Ram Katori but the title of Ram Chandra as bhumidhar was not extinguished. In view of the above discussion the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Krishna Murari shall have only rights to enjoy the land in dispute as long as Smt. Ram Katori is alive is correct but at the same time it should have been declared that Ram Chandra is the bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. It was not necessary to have left this question to be determined on the death of Smt, Ram Katori. 19. Before closing the judgment this has to be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case Ram Chandra has accepted compensation on the basis that the land in dispute was in possession of Smt. Ram Katori as a 'birdar' so he is estopped from claiming bhumidhari right. I am unable to accept this submission. Firstly, there is no proof on the record that compensation was awarded to Ram Chandra treating the land in dispute as the sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. There is no estoppel against statute. This argument further loses sight of Section 34 of the UP ZA and LR Act which reads as follows: Nothing in Sections 32, 33 and 49, shall affect the right of any person to establish his claim in respect of any estate or part thereof by due process of law in the court having jurisdiction. This argument further loses sight of Section 34 of the UP ZA and LR Act which reads as follows: Nothing in Sections 32, 33 and 49, shall affect the right of any person to establish his claim in respect of any estate or part thereof by due process of law in the court having jurisdiction. The above section saves the right of a person to establish his claim in the civil court. Even if a person receives compensation on a wrong basis he cannot be debarred from Establishing his claim in a competent court. 20. The above view of mine also finds support in principle by a decision of this Court in Munshi Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1969 ALJ 523. 21. In the result writ petition No. 234 of 1966 is hereby dismissed and writ petition No. 240 of 1916 is allowed to extent that Ram Chandra Petitioner should have been declared to be (sic) of the property in (sic) matter should not have been (sic) determined on the death of (sic) and to this extent the Deputy Director is quashed (sic) the Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is upheld. The Consolidation', Officer concerned is directed to make necessary entries in the light of this decision. There will be no order as to costs. W.P. 234/66 dismissed. W.P. 240/66 partly allowed.