JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 11-8-1979 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra dismissing first appeal no. 321 of 1968/Aligarh confirming judgment and decree dated 19-7-1986 passed by Sri B.S. Jayant, S.D.O. Iglas, District Aligarh, dismissing plaintiffs suit for division of half share claimed by them. 2. The order dated 21-2-1973 passed by Mr. M. Zageer Member remanding the case to the trial court for fresh decision has been set aside in defendant's writ by order dated 27-11-1974. 3. The plaintiffs-appellant had filed the suit on 17-10-1967 for division of half share in the disputed land. 4. The suit was contested by defendant Pooran alleging that the name of plaintiff was get recorded fictitiously on the basis of a farzi and invalid sale deed alleged to have been executed by Brij Kishore son of Kanhaiya Lal, that the said deed was void as the village was under consolidation operations and no previous permission of the S.D.O. was obtained. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants who were plaintiffs withdrew the suit with permission to file a fresh suit by order dated 28-11-1973 passed by the trial court, therefore, the appeal was infructuous and was liable to be dismissed. 6. It was argued in reply that a revision against that order filed by the defendant is pending in the court of Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which matter is not in issue here. It shall be decided in that revision application. It was also argued that order dated 28-11-1973 was passed after remand order by the Board dated 21-2-1973 and was within the jurisdiction. 7. The order dated 28-11-1973 cannot be allowed to remain in force as it could have been allowed to remain in force only if the order of remand by the Board dated 21-2-1973 would have subsisted. It was also argued that order dated 28-11-1973 was passed after remand order by the Board dated 21-2-1973 and was within the jurisdiction. 7. The order dated 28-11-1973 cannot be allowed to remain in force as it could have been allowed to remain in force only if the order of remand by the Board dated 21-2-1973 would have subsisted. It had been set aside by the Writ in the Hon'ble High Court wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Justice R.B. Misra, that if the order of the Board for remanding the case does not subsist and is vacated that order with drawing the suit shall automatically cease to have any value and wilful through therefore, I hold that as observed by the Hon'ble High Court the order dated 28-11-1973 does not exist after the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the writ and fallen through it hereby vacated. The revision no. 89 of 1973-74/Aligarh which has been consigned on 27-6-1974 on the basis of stay order dated 26-2-1973 passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be deemed to have been decided accordingly. A copy of this order shall be placed on that revision file. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. I has been argued that both the courts below came to a wrong conclusion that Section 16-A of the C.H. Act, applied to the facts of the case that on the date of the suit that section was not in existence and Section 5(1) (c)(ii) was applicable and as the sale deed dated 2-9-1957 executed by Brij Kishore was of his entire half share no previous permission from the S.O.C. was required. Reliance has been place on Sheo Narain Singh and another v. Sudama Singh and other, 1980 R.D. page 202. 10. It was argued in reply that Section 5(1)(c)(ii) was not applicable to the facts of the present case and Section 16-A of the C.H. Act was applicable which prohibited sale of any holding or part or share therein without previous permission the settlement Officer consolidation. Reliance has been placed on, Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and others, A.I.R. 1974 Alld. page 106, Kallu v. Naththu and others, (F.B.) 1966 R.D. page 265, Nathi Singh and others v. Kanchhida and others, 1962 R.D. page 226 and Riasat Khan v. Dy. Dir. Reliance has been placed on, Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and others, A.I.R. 1974 Alld. page 106, Kallu v. Naththu and others, (F.B.) 1966 R.D. page 265, Nathi Singh and others v. Kanchhida and others, 1962 R.D. page 226 and Riasat Khan v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp at Buddaun and others, 1981 R.D. page 22. 11. The sale deed in question is dated 2-9-1957, then Section 16-A of C.C. Act was in existence which was inserted by U.P. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1956 and was deleted by Section 13 of the Amendment Act No. 38 of 1958, which was as follows:- "16-A, Prohibition of transfer during consolidation operation:- (1) After the publication of the statement under Section 15 and until the issue of a notification under Section 52, a tenure-holder shall not except with the permission in writing of the settlement officer (Consolidation) previously obtained, transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any plot or share in any holding included in the scheme of consolidation notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (2) The Settlement Officer shall grant the permission referred to in sub-section (1) unless for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that the proposed transfer is likely to defeat the scheme of consolidation". 12. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) as existed before the amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1958 runs as follows:- "Section (1)(c)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement officer Consolidation previously obtained shall- (i) Use his holdings or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming: (ii) transfer by way for sale, gift, or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. Provided that a tenure holder may continue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued (Under sub Section (2) of Section (4)". 13. Provided that a tenure holder may continue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued (Under sub Section (2) of Section (4)". 13. Section 5(1)(c) has been again amended by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 which came into force on 7th December, 1974 reads as follows:- "(c) Notwithstanding any thing 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- (iii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area". 13-A. It has been held in Raisat Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Lucknow Camp at Budaun and others, 1981 R.D. page 22, as follows: "Clearly the language of the provision of Section 5(1)(c) of the Act as existing after its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXIV of 1974 leave no doubt whatsoever that whether transfer is in respect of the entire holding or any part thereof previous permission has to be obtained. The Legislature introduced the amendment so as to bring within the fold of this provision even these transfers where the holding may be transferred in whole." 14. It has been held in 1962 R.D. page 226 (supra) boarding Section 16-A as it existed before it deletion as follows:- "What the section prohibits is a transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange of any plot in the khata of a holding. This means that one or more of the plots of a khata cannot be transferred without prior permission. It is not possible to accept the contention that through one or more plots of a khata cannot be transferred the whole khata can be transferred without such permission." 15. In 1966 R.D. page 265 (Supra) it has been held as follows:- "The language of the Section is open to no other interpretation except that any transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange will be invalid unless the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is previously obtained so that any permission granted subsequently will be of no avail and for the purposes of section 16(1) be without jurisdiction. In the instant case the order issued by the Deputy Director, cancelling the ex-post-facto sanction by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was perfectly correct." 16. The rulings reported in A.I.R. 1974 Alld. page 106 (F.B.) (Supra) and reported in 1980 R.D. page 202 (supra) deal with the provision of Section 5(1)(c) of the C.H. Act as it existed prior to amendment of 1974 mentioned above and are thus not applicable to the present case to which old Section 16-A of U.P.C.H. Act is applicable. The argument that when the suit was filed Section 16-A was not on the statute book hence cannot be applied, has got not force because, neither old Section 16-A nor old Section 5(1)(c) of the C.H. Act can be made applicable retrospectively, they being not procedural law but dealing with substantive right of transfer of holding and if this argument is accepted then Section 5(1)(c) as amended in 1974 which is also in the same terms as old Section 16-A would be made applicable and the same result will follow, because it has been held in 1981 R.D. page 22 (supra), that transfer of whole holding or part or share therein is void if it is without previous permission of the S.O.C. It was so held also in 1962 R.D. page 226. 17. Thus as old Section 16-A is applicable to the present case as it existed prior to its deletion, the transfer of even part or share of a holding or of whole holding without previous permission of the settlement Officer Consolidation is void. 18. In view of the above the concurrent findings of both the courts below are highly justified and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed by both the courts below which does not require any interference and this appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 19. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.