JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a reference dated September 8, 1978 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, recommending to set aside order dated November 16, 1977 passed by S.D.O. Ment, district Mathura in a case under Section 163 of Act I of 1951 ordering that the court has got jurisdiction to rehear the case and ordered Sumendra Datt applicant to adduce evidence that the transfer of .12 by Rameshwar Prasad to opposite parties No. 2 to 4 Shyam Sunder, Om Prakash and Raman Lal by sale deed dated October 18, 1976 was hit by Section 168-A of Act I of 1951. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that only L.M.C. was entitled to file the suit under Section 163 of Act I of 1951 and Misc. application of Sumendra Datt a private person was not maintainable. 4. It was argued in reply that the revision application is not maintainable being against interlocutory order. 5. Section 168-A of Act of 1951 runs as follows:- "168-A. Transfer of fragments - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidation area except where the transfer is in favour of tenure-holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not in favour of any such tenure-holder the whole, or so much of the plot in which the person has Bhumidhari rights, which pertains to the fragment is hereby transferred. (2) The transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. (3) When a Bhumidhar has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the provisions of Section 167 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply." Transfer in contravention of provision of Section 168-A is void per its sub-section (2). Its sub-section 3 made the provisions of Section 167 applicable mutatis mutandis old Section 167 of the Act ran as follows:- "167. Its sub-section 3 made the provisions of Section 167 applicable mutatis mutandis old Section 167 of the Act ran as follows:- "167. The consequences specified in clause (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 163 shall ensure in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166 with the substitution of references to the date of the order under sub-section (1) of Section 168 by reference to the date of such transfer." It provided that provisions of Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 163 shall ensure. Old Section 163 ran as follows: "163. Consequences of void transfers by Bhumidhars:- (1) Where any holding or part therefore 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 Assistant Collector First Class may, either suo motu or on the application of any person, and after making such inquiry as they thinks fit, by order declare such transfer to be void. Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the transferor as well as to be transferee. (2) the subject matter of transfer of any holding or part has been declared to be void under sub-section (1) the following consequences shall ensure namely:- (a) the subject matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of such order, be deemed to have vested in the State Government 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 encumbrances; (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 Government 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." Old Section 163 Supra has been deleted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 and new Section 167 has been substituted by that Act as follows:- "167. (1) The following consequences shall ensure in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely- (a) the subject-matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (c) the transferee may remove other movable property by or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants, the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." 6. Thus it is clear that the consequences which were to ensure under old Section 163 of Act I of 1951 which were made applicable by Old Section 167 now ensure under new Section 167 itself and the Collector by sub-Section (2) of new Section 167 is empowered to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. Thus it is now clear that after passing of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 now the Collector is the authority for ensuing for enforcing the provision of new Section 167 of the Act and not the S.D.O. who was to declare some transactions as void under old Section 163 then the consequences mentioned in sub-section 2 of old Section 163 were to ensure. The deletion of Section 163 and addition of new Section 167 is all procedural matter and is, therefore, retrospective and shall apply to pending old cases. The S.D.O. had power to enquire whether provisions of Section 168-A were contravened or not. He is entitled to do so on applications of private persons or suo-motu or otherwise but now if he makes any such enquiry he will have to submit his report to the Collector for action. The recommendation of learned Additional Commissioner is erroneous if provisions of old Section 163 read with provision of old Section 167 and Section 168-A were considered, therefore, I was not inclined to accepted the reference but now the S.D.O. has got no power as new Section 167 after deletion of Old Section 163 provides instead of S.D.O., the Collector to be the authority to take over possession etc......, but the S.D.O. can make inquiry and submit his report for action to be taken by the Collector under new Section 167 of Act I of 1951. 7. In view of the above, the revision application is rejected. The order of the S.D.O. is maintainable to the effect that he shall make enquiry whether provisions of Section 168-A of the Act were contravened or not and if contravened he shall submit the report to the Collector of the district for taking action under new Section 167 of Act I of 1951.