JUDGMENT : B.D. AGARWALA, J. 1. The dispute in this case relates to certain plots of Chak No. 251 situate in village Nanakhera, Pargana Ujhani, District Budaun. The Petitioners' case is that originally the land in dispute belonged to Batool Khan Respondent No. 2 and by a registered sale deed dated 20th April, 1976 the land was transferred in favour of the Petitioners. Accordingly, an application was filed by the Petitioners praying for their names being entered in the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated October 27, 1976 directed the entry of the Petitioners ' name in respect of the land in dispute, in view of this registered sale deed. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. This appeal was decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The view taken by him was that since the sale deed pertained to the entire holding of the transferor and not merely in respect of a part thereof, as such there was no necessity for obtaining the prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. The Respondent No. 2 filed a revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This revision came up for decision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp at Budaun. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 31st March, 1978. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that in view of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act as existing after the amendment made in the said provision by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974, prior sanction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would be necessary even if the entire holding was the subject-matter of transfer. It is this judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which the Petitioners have impugned in the present petition. 2. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition has no merit. 3. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as it existed. It is this judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which the Petitioners have impugned in the present petition. 2. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition has no merit. 3. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as it existed. before its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 read thus: (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, no tenure holder except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, previously obtained shall--(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. After its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974, which amending Act came into force on 7th December, 1974, it reads thus: (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation previously obtained shall-(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area. 4. Clearly, the language of this provision as existing after its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 leaves no doubt whatsoever that whether transfer is in respect of the entire holding or any part thereof, previous permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has to be obtained. The Legislature introduced this amendment so as to bring within the fold of this provision even those transfers where the holding may be transferred in whole. The clear language of the provision admits of no doubt as to the intention of the legislature. 5. The provision as existing prior to its amendment in 1974 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Ram Rati and Others Vs. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and Others, AIR 1974 All 106 . The full Bench took the view that the expression 'any part of his holding' did not include 'whole holding'. This interpretation was placed by the Full Bench relying upon the clear language of the provision as it then existed. The language of the proviso at the end of Clause (ii) also heavily weighed with the Full Bench while interpreting the language of this clause. This proviso still continues on the Statute book in the same form as it existed prior to its amendment in 1974. The language of the proviso at the end of Clause (ii) also heavily weighed with the Full Bench while interpreting the language of this clause. This proviso still continues on the Statute book in the same form as it existed prior to its amendment in 1974. It permits user by the tenure holder of his holding, or any part thereof. This proviso thus further makes it clear that while using the words 'his holding' or 'any part thereof what was intended was that the holding may be whole holding or may be a part of the holding. 6. In Ramji Lal Singh v. State of U.P. 1977 RD 307, a Division Bench of this Court following the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj (supra) took the same view. The provision which came up for interpretation before the Division Bench was as it existed before its amendment in 1974. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has in his judgment relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Kallu v. Naththu 1966 RD 265 where on the language of Section 16-A of the Act as it then existed, it was held that any transfer would be invalid unless permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation had been previously obtained. Section 16-A. of the Act was later deleted from the Statute book. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as reproduced above, is substantially in the same terms. 8. It is thus evident that the Legislature, purposely keeping in view the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramrati v. Gram Samaj (supra) amended this provision so as to prohibit the transfers even in respect of the whole holding except with the previous permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 9. Admittedly, no permission was taken in the present case prior to the transfer of the land in dispute through the sale deed dated 20th April, 1976. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence in my opinion took the correct view. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to Section 168-A of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to show that the intention was to prevent fragmentation and it was not intended to place any such prohibition except with prior permission upon transfers of whole holdings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence in my opinion took the correct view. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to Section 168-A of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to show that the intention was to prevent fragmentation and it was not intended to place any such prohibition except with prior permission upon transfers of whole holdings. The very opening words of Sub-section (i)(c) of Section 5 of the Act makes operation of the provision of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. In view of this I need not further dwell upon this submission. 11. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstance, parties shall bear their own costs.