JUDGMENT M. Saidullah and P.C. Saxena, Members. - This Bench has heard arguments on a question of law referred to us by a single Member of Board of Revenue, asking for a ruling as to whether Section 23 of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 entitled "Transitory Provision" by virtue of which the Sub Division Officers were empowered to cancel leases granted up to 28th June, 1968 within the purview of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, would be deemed to have lapsed on the promulgation of the Act XXXV of 1970. 2. We are of the opinion that if the Transitory Provisions contained in Act XIX of 1969 were held not to have been repealed by virtue of non-mention of any specific provision of repeal in Act XXXV of 1970, no inconsistency should be found between the provision and section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as amended by Act XXXV of 1970. A reading of the two together, however, shows that there is an apparent inconsistency. The Transitory Provision, for example, refers to inquiries into the grant to leases under Section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 198(2) as amended by the Act of 1970, however, does not relate to this subject at all. The apparent inconsistency would lead to the definite conclusion that the Transitory Provision contained in the Act XIV of 1969 stood repealed on the promulgation of Act XXXV of 1970. 3. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the Act XVII of 1968 included a Transitory Provision giving certain powers to the Sub Divisional Officer. The amended Act XIV of 1969 also contained a Transitory Provision. No such provision was, however, included in the two subsequent amended Acts. Act XXXV of 1970 and Act XXXIV of 1974. 4. The reference is answered accordingly. 5. The case shall be sent back to the single Member concerned for further disposal.