JUDGMENT : D.S. Mathur, CJ. The learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the earlier decisions of this Court in Parmanand v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad 1966 AWR 32 and Jaishankar Singh v. The State of U.P. 1968 AWR 849, require reconsideration, has referred the following question to a larger Bench: Whether a sirdar after having executed a sale deed in contravention of law can still acquire Bhumidhari rights in respect of that land? 2. Sections 167 and 190 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) were amended under the U.P. Amending Act No. XXXVII of 1958, by incorporating Clause (cc) in Section 190(1) and Sub-section (2) to Section 167 of the Act. 3. Section 190 makes a provision for extinction of the interest of a sirdar. Prior to the 1958 amendment the interest of a Sirdar in the holding or any part thereof did not stand extinguished on his making a transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 166 of the Act merely declared the said transfer to be void and u/s 167 the Gaon Sabha could sue for the ejectment of the transferee or any person who had obtained possession of the holding. Upon the ejectment of the transferee or the person in possession u/s 167, all the rights and interest of the sirdar in the holding or any part thereof, were extinguished. Consequently, if the transferor was still in possession, no suit could be instituted u/s 167 and the rights of the sirdar inspite of the void transfer were not extinguished. 4. By virtue of Clause (cc) of Section 190(1) of the Act, the interest of the Sirdar shall be extinguished when the holding or a part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act. If this was the only provision under the Act, only one view was possible, namely, that once the holding or a part of the holding was transferred, the rights of the sirdar stood extinguished in respect of the property under transfer. But as pointed out in the above mentioned earlier decision of the Court, the simultaneous amendment made in Section 167 does not lead to the same inference. But as pointed out in the above mentioned earlier decision of the Court, the simultaneous amendment made in Section 167 does not lead to the same inference. The existing Section 167 which was renumbered as Sub-section (1) was not at all amended except that for the words "Gaon Sabha or the Collector on behalf of the Gaon Sabha" the words "Gaon Samaj" were substituted. "Gaon Sabha" was again substituted for "Gaon Samaj" by U.P. Act 33 of 1961. It is not necessary that there must be transfer of possession before the sale is complete. Consequently, it can happen that even though a legal sale-deed had been executed there is no actual delivery of possession. In such case, the Gaon Sabha cannot institute a suit under the existing Section 167(1) of the Act and once a suit cannot lie against the transferee or the person obtaining possession, then the transferor-sirdar cannot be ejected and his interest shall not by virtue of Section 168 be extinguished. The phrase "and every person who may have thus obtained possession" in Section 167(1) in the context in which it has been used cannot obviously refer to the transferor sirdar. 5. There is evidently a conflict between Sections 167 and 168 on one side and Clause (cc) of Section 190(1) of the Act on the other. The effect of Clause (cc) of Section 190(1) of the Act is to deprive the sirdar of his existing rights and, therefore, the Courts of law must give that construction which will be beneficial to him, of course, when there exists an ambiguity or more than one view of the provisions of the enactment is possible "Statutes which encroach on the rights of the subject, whether as regards person or property, are subject to a strict construction in the same way as penal Acts. It is a recognised rule that they should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect such rights, and if there is any ambiguity, the construction which is in favour of the freedom of the individual should be adopted." (Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition at p. 251). 6. The matter can be looked into from another point of view also. In Sri Venkataramana Devaru and Others Vs. 6. The matter can be looked into from another point of view also. In Sri Venkataramana Devaru and Others Vs. The State of Mysore and Others, AIR 1958 SC 255 it was held: The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition) at p. 188 states: Collusion may also be avoided by holding that one section which is ex-facie in conflict with another, merely provides for an exception from the general rule contained in that other. 7. Construing Sections 167, 168 and 190 in this light it can be said that Section 190 contains the general rule in regard to the extinction of the interest of a sirdar whereas Sections 167 and 168 contain an exception that in cases covered by Section 190(1)(cc) extinction shall not take place unless a suit for ejectment as contemplated by Section 167 has been filed and ejectment as contemplated by Section 168 on the basis of such a suit has taken place. 8. When the interest of sirdar does not stand extinguished automatically on the execution of a sale-deed but is extinguished u/s 168 upon ejectment in a suit u/s 167, he continues to be sirdar and on payment of ten times of rent becomes bhumidhar. 9. Our answer to the question, therefore, is that a 'sirdar' can even after the execution of a sale-deed in contravention of the law, acquire Bhumidhari rights in respect of that land unless u/s 168 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the interest of the sirdar has extinguished.