JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 14, 1974 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra allowing appeal No. 147 of 1971-72 setting aside the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1972 passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Class, Mathura decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for ejectment of respondent 1 to 4 from the disputed land. 2. The Gaon Sabha had filed suit on March 18, 1971 for ejectment of defendants 1 to 5 and defendant No. 9 from plot No. 2800 area 2.50 acres as Bharti its tenant had sold it on June 11, 1966 to Nathoo defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 9 Smt. Shyam in contravention of the provision of Section 154 of Act I of 1951 and that the defendant No. 5 Nathoo in order to complicated the matter executed a sale deed of his share in the disputed plot to defendants 1 to 4 on September 11, 1968. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 alleging that their sale deed by Nathoo was valid. They had no land and the right to Nathoo had not extinguished when he had executed the sale deed to them. 4. Defendant No. 5, Nathoo, had also filed written statement in support of the claim of the defendants 1 to 4. 5. Defendant No. 5 has also contested the suit alleging that sale deed in her favour was valid and was not in contravention of the provisions of Section 154 of Act I of 1951. 6. The trial court held that the sale deed of share in favour of defendant No. 9 was valid as she had no land from before. This finding was confirmed by the lower appellate court. 7. The trial court held that the sale deed in favour of Nathoo was in contravention of the provision of Sec. 154 and he had no right. Therefore, the sale deed to defendants 1 to 4 was also invalid and defendants 1 to 4 were liable to ejectment. The lower appellate court held accordingly but further held that as defendant No. 9 was a co-tenant with Nathoo and as Nathoo had no right therefore, she became sole Bhumidhar of the disputed land, hence dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. The lower appellate court held accordingly but further held that as defendant No. 9 was a co-tenant with Nathoo and as Nathoo had no right therefore, she became sole Bhumidhar of the disputed land, hence dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It was argued on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and State that the peculiar view taken by the lower appellate court is against the law and cannot be maintained. 10. It was argued on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 that both the courts below illegally held that Nathoo had no right and consequently defendants 1 to 4 also have got no right in the disputed land and wrongly held them liable to be ejected or their share went to defendant No. 9 who being co-tenant cannot be ejected from any portion of land as she was a co-tenant in every inch of the land. 11. Section 154(1) of Act I of 1951 as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act XXXV of 1976 was as follows:- 154. Restrictions on the transfer by a Bhumidhar:- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and (3) no Bhumidhar shall have rights to transfer, by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person other than an institution established for a charitable purposes, where such person, shall, as a result of the sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held by himself or together with his family, will in the aggregate exceed 12.50 acres in Uttar Pradesh. and the present Section 154(1) after the said amendment stands as follows:- 154. Restrictions on the transfer by a Bhumidhar. - (1) save as provided in sub-section (2), no Bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person where the transferee shall, as a result of such sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any held by his family will in the aggregate, exceed 5.0586 hectares (12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh. old and new Section 154(1) do not provide for extinction of the rights of the transferee if the aggregate of his land together with the transferred land exceeds 12.50 acres. 12. old and new Section 154(1) do not provide for extinction of the rights of the transferee if the aggregate of his land together with the transferred land exceeds 12.50 acres. 12. Old Section 163 which runs as follows provided for ejectment of the transferee from such holding or part on the suit on Gaon Sabha which shall thereupon become vacant. 163. Transfer in contravention of this Act:- (1) Where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of the provision of (Section 154, or Section 157-A) the transferee shall notwithstanding any thing in any law, be liable to ejectment from such holding or part on the suit on the Gaon Sabha which shall thereupon become vacant land, but nothing in the section will prejudice the right of the transfer to realize the whole or portion of the price remaining unpaid, or the right of any other person other than transferee to proceed against such holding or land enforcement of any claim thereto. (2) to every suit for ejectment under the sections the transferor shall be made a party." The present Section 163 which runs as follows provides for suo moto declaration by the Asstt. Collector 1st Class such transfer to be void and from the date of such declaration the consequences mentioned in sub-section 2(a), (b) and (c) shall follow:- Section 163. Consequences of void transfers by Bhumidhars: - (1) Where any holding or part thereof has been transferred in contravention of Section 154 or Section 157-A then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract, decree or order of any court, the Asstt. Collector 1st Class may, either suo motu or on the application of any person, and after making such inquiry as they think fit, by order declare such transfer to be void: Provided that no order under the sub-section shall be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the transferor as well as to the transferee. (2) Where the transfer of any holding or part has been declared to be void under sub-section (1) the following consequences shall cause namely:- (a) the subject matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of such order, be deemed to have vested in the State Govt. free from all encumbrances. (2) Where the transfer of any holding or part has been declared to be void under sub-section (1) the following consequences shall cause namely:- (a) the subject matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of such order, be deemed to have vested in the State Govt. free from all encumbrances. (b) the trees, crops and wells existing in the holding on the date of the order shall with effect from the said date be deemed to have been vested in the State Government free from all incumbrances. (c) the transferee may remove other movable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on the holding on the date of the order, within such time as may be prescribed. (3) Where any holding or part thereof or other property has vested in the State Govt. under sub-section (2) and any person is in unauthorised occupation thereof it shall be lawful for the Collector to direct that such person be evicted therefrom and for that purpose he may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." 13. So it is clear that unless, if the old section is applicable the transferee is ejected in a suit of the Gaon Sabha his rights exist and if the new section applies unless such transfer is declared void his interest exist and cannot be held to be void and the finding of both the courts below is erroneous that Nathoo had no right and consequently his vendees also have got no right in the land in suit. The ruling in Fiqire v. Board of Revenue, 1968 R.D. 49 has been wrongly quoted by the Addl. Commissioner. It helps the defendants 1 to 5 and not the plaintiff at all. 14. It has been held in Kripa Shanker v. D.D.C. Mirzapur and others 1979 RD 80 : 1979 AWC 459 as follows:- "Sub-section (1) of Section 154 merely places a restriction on transfers by a Bhumidhar but does not deal with the effect of a deed executed in breach of the restriction imposed. The effect of the contravention of Section 154 has been specified in Section 163 and all that Section 163 provides is that where such a transfer in contravention of Section 154 has been made the transferee shall be liable to ejectment but the question is from what portion he is liable to be ejected. The effect of the contravention of Section 154 has been specified in Section 163 and all that Section 163 provides is that where such a transfer in contravention of Section 154 has been made the transferee shall be liable to ejectment but the question is from what portion he is liable to be ejected. The section provides, "the transferee shall, notwithstanding any thing in any law, be liable to ejectment from such holding or part." The expression holding or part which undoubtedly refers to the holding or part that has been transferred by the Bhumidhar, is preceded by the word "Such", and that whole expression 'such holding or part' clearly means that holding or part thereof which has been transferred in contravention of Section 154. In other words the use of the word "such" clearly suggest that the ejectment should be from the land transferred in contravention of Section 154 i.e. to say, from the land in excess of the prescribed limit. Reading Section 154 and 163 together it seems to be clear that any transfer by a Bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 is not void but voidable at the instance of the Gaon Sabha only to the extent of the contravention, that is to say, only to the extent of excess over and above the prescribed limit. Section 18 deals with extinction of interest of a transferor Bhumidhar who has effected a transfer in contravention of Section 154 and has no bearing on the question as to how and what extent the transferee is effected by the contravention. The object behind enacting Section 154 is to place ceiling on land holding and it is with that object in view that restriction of the type specified therein is placed on the right of a Bhumidhar to transfer his land by way of sale or gift and if this be the real object of the legislature then the object would be achieved if on proper interpretation it is held that the deed by which transfer is affected in contravention of Section 154 should meet the consequences under Section 163 not entirely but only to the extent of the excess over and above the prescribed limit." 15. It is, therefore, clear that right of Nathoo had not extinguished on September 11, 1968 when he executed the sale deed to defendants 1 to 4 and the sale of the share of Nathoo to them is not hit by the provisions of Section 154 of Act I of 1951. In the present case the old Section 163 will apply and as Nathoo was not ejected from the share of his land upto September 11, 1968 he had every right to execute sale deed to defendants 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 are not liable to be ejected from the land in suit as sale to them is not contravened by the provisions of Sec. 154. Even if the new Section 163 is to be applied although it cannot be applied retrospectively as the Asstt. Collector 1st Class had not declared sale deed either to Nathoo or by him to defendants 1 to 4, void as provided by new Section 163 defendants 1 to 4, or defendant No. 5 cannot be made liable for the consequences mentioned in new Section 163(2) of Action I of 1951. Therefore, in my considered opinion the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed and defendants 1 to 4 and defendants No. 9 are entitled to be declared to be co-Bhumidhars in possession of the disputed plot. 16. In view of the above this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside and the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed. Defendants 1 to 4 and defendant No. 9 are declared to be co-Bhumidhars in possession of the disputed plot who shall be so recorded and the papers shall be corrected accordingly.