JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition has been referred by a learned Single Judge for considering the correctness of the decision given in Writ Petition No. 574 of 1971, Ganga v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, decided on 13th March, 1974. The controversy involved is about the interpretation of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Relevant portion of Section 5 is extracted below: 5. Effect of notification u/s 4(2)(1). Upon the publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 in the Official Gazettee, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of the notification u/s 52 or Sub-section (1) of Section 6 as the case maybe, ensure in the area to which the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 relates, namely-(c) notwithstanding anything contained in the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950, no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall- (i) .... (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. 2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy, briefly stated, are these. The dispute involved in the present case relates to Khatas Nos. 12, 25, 30, 29 and 198 of Chak No. 234 of village Chandi Gahna, Taluqa Asnao, pargana Bhadohi, district Varanasi. The disputed holdings belonged to Smt. Sonkali. In the basic year Khatauni of 1372 Fasli, when the proceedings under the Act were started, the disputed Khatas were entered in the name of Smt. Jirwanti, although she had died before the date of vesting and Smt. Sonkali had succeeded to the same. A notification u/s 4 of the Act was made on 12th August, 1964. After the consolidation proceedings had started, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Gyanpur, Varanasi, issued an order granting general permission to all the tenure holders of all the villages excepting those villages in which publication of CH Form 11 u/s 10 of the Act had already been made, to transfer or alienate their holdings in accordance with law. CH Forms 10 and 11 of the village in question were issued on 31st December, 1966. Before this date, Petitioner obtained registered sale deeds of the holdings in dispute on 15th December, 1964, from Smt. Sonkali. CH Forms 10 and 11 of the village in question were issued on 31st December, 1966. Before this date, Petitioner obtained registered sale deeds of the holdings in dispute on 15th December, 1964, from Smt. Sonkali. On the basis of the sale deeds, the Petitioners applied to the Consolidation Officer in the Partal proceedings for the entry of their names. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the claims of the Petitioners on December 9, 1964, on the view that the general permission, in pursuance of which the transfer had been made in favour of the Petitioners, was invalid. The Petitioners preferred an appeal u/s 11(1) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on 15th January, 1965. Against this order, the Petitioners filed a review before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but on the review failing, they preferred a revision u/s 48 of the Act. In the meanwhile, chaks were carved out and the disputed holdings formed part of Chak No. 234. 3. On 23rd October, 1967 Jata Shanker, Respondent No. 4, claiming himself to be the bhumidhar of Chak 234 on the basis of sale deed dated September 19, 1967, from Smt. Sonkali, filed an objection u/s 12(2) of the Act and prayed for mutation of his name over the disputed Chak. The Petitioners contested the claim of Jata Shanker pleading that as Smt. Sonkali had already executed a sale deed in their favour in December 1964, she had no right left in the Chak and as such, the sale deed dated 19th September, 1967, executed by her in favour of Jata Shanker Respondent 4, was invalid. 4. The Consolidation Officer held that the sale deed of Jata Shanker was invalid, being, in respect of part of the holding. He, however, further found that the Petitioners were not entitled to be entered as bhumidhars on the basis of general permission u/s 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which, according to him, was illegal, being in contravention of the aforesaid provision. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal filed by Jata Shanker. Against this, Jata Shanker filed a revision u/s 48. The revision filed by Jata Shanker was numbered as Revision No. 11561. It may be recalled that the Petitioners also had filed a revision u/s 48 against the orders of the consolidation authorities before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was numbered as Revision No. 4586. Against this, Jata Shanker filed a revision u/s 48. The revision filed by Jata Shanker was numbered as Revision No. 11561. It may be recalled that the Petitioners also had filed a revision u/s 48 against the orders of the consolidation authorities before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was numbered as Revision No. 4586. Both of these revisions were decided by a common judgment by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the sale deed in favour of Jata Shanker, Respondent 4, was valid. He did not agree with the finding of the consolidation authorities that it was in respect of part of the holding and, as such, was invalid. He, accordingly, allowed the revision of the Petitioners, the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that the sale deed having been executed without the specific permission required by Section 5(1)(c)(ii), was invalid and, as such, could not confer any right on the Petitioners. Being dissatisfied, the Petitioners filed the present writ. 5. In this background, the controversy is whether the general permission relied upon by the Petitioners in support of their sale deed is valid and the Petitioners had validly purchased the rights of the holding in dispute prior to the sale deed executed in favour of Jata Shanker, Respondent 4. Section 5(1)(c)(ii) has been quoted by us above. Rule 16-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, which has been framed u/s 5(1)(c)(ii) is also being quoted below: 16-B. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall grant the permission referred to in Section 5(c)(ii) unless-for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that the proposed transfer is likely to affect adversely the scheme of consolidation. 6. Reading the two provisions together, it appears to us that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is required to grant specific permission after considering each individual case on merits, and that the Act does not contemplate of a general permission to all the tenure holders where the consolidation is going on. Section 5(1) gives the effect of notification made u/s 4(2) of the Act. One of the effects is that no tenure holder would be entitled to transfer his holding except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The requirement of obtaining the permission in writing emphasises the need of taking permission individually in every case. Section 5(1) gives the effect of notification made u/s 4(2) of the Act. One of the effects is that no tenure holder would be entitled to transfer his holding except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The requirement of obtaining the permission in writing emphasises the need of taking permission individually in every case. Rule 16-B also indicates that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has to apply his mind to every individual case and to find out as to whether permission can be granted to the tenure holder intending to sell his holding. Under Rule 16-B, an application for permission can be rejected if the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing, that the proposed transfer is likely to affect adversely the scheme of consolidation. This rule can be given effect to only when every case is considered on its own merits and a finding is given thereon. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that since the granting of permission for transferring the holding to a tenure holder is a rule and refusal to do so is only an exception, the interpretation placed by this Court should be one which carries out the object of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) and Rule 16-B. He urged that the individual case is not required to be considered, and that the grant of general permission can achieve the said purpose. We are unable to agree with this submission. Had the legislature intended to give power on the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to make a general order for permission, it would have been provided for the same as it had been done in Section 7A of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The legislature was aware of the requirement of making such a provision. Having chosen not to do so, the legislature must be intended to have provided for specific order being passed in every individual case. 8. In Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh Vs. Deen Bandhu Rai, AIR 1965 SC 484 , a similar controversy had arisen. What was said in this decision by the Supreme Court clearly makes out that every individual case has to be decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for granting or refusing to grant permission to sell or transfer the holding. 9. In Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh Vs. Deen Bandhu Rai, AIR 1965 SC 484 , a similar controversy had arisen. What was said in this decision by the Supreme Court clearly makes out that every individual case has to be decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for granting or refusing to grant permission to sell or transfer the holding. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners attempted to distinguish the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court on the submission that the provisions that are required to be interpreted are different from those which were considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. It is true that Section 16-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was the subject matter of interpretation of the said case, had been deleted and Section 5(1)(c)(ii) -was added subsequently by Act No. XXI of 1966, but this amendment has not brought about any change. A part of Section 16-A is Section 5(1)(c)(ii), whereas the other portion is Rule 16-B. The language remains the same. Reading the two provisions together, there is no doubt left that there was no alteration. Consequently, it is not possible to make any different interpretation of the provisions in question than what has been said by the Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Consolidation v. Din Bandhu (supra). 10. Learned Counsel argued that the entire proceedings of consolidation for the purposes of permission can be bifurcated into three stages. The first was obtaining of permission by the tenure holder, and the remaining two stages were before the preparation of Statement of Principles and thereafter. According-to him, after the proceeding u/s 10 have been undertaken, the requirement of obtaining individual permission can be spelt out from Section 5(1)(c)(ii), but not in the earlier stages. We are unable to find any substance in this bifurcation. Section 5(1)(c)(ii)is general in terms and does not bifurcate the proceedings. u/s 5(1)(c)(ii), permission is required for transfer. According to the Petitioner's Counsel himself, after Section 10 proceedings have taken place, individual permission may be necessary. If that is so, there is no reason to think why individual permission is not required before Section 10 proceedings. To uphold the submission of the Petitioners learned Counsel would be reading in Section 5(1)(c)(ii) something which is not provided for. According to the Petitioner's Counsel himself, after Section 10 proceedings have taken place, individual permission may be necessary. If that is so, there is no reason to think why individual permission is not required before Section 10 proceedings. To uphold the submission of the Petitioners learned Counsel would be reading in Section 5(1)(c)(ii) something which is not provided for. As was required by the old Act, similar provision about the preparation of Settlement of Principles is still to be found in Section 8-A of Chapter II. 11. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has to take into account the whole perspective for granting or refusing the permission. In doing so, he has to be guided by the fact that the transfer should not effect adversely the scheme of consolidation. It does not appear to be correct that unless the scheme of consolidation has been prepared, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has to grant permission blindly to every tenure holder. He can if interest of consolidation, requires, withhold the permission and call upon the tenure holder to wait till the Statement of Principles is not prepared. It is not very difficult to imagine that in some cases if the premission is granted before the preparation of the scheme of consolidation, the transfer taking effect may cause difficulties in the preparation of the scheme. 12. For these reasons, we are of opinion that the view of the learned Single Judge taken in Deputy Director of Consolidation v. Din Bandhu (supra) does not lay down the correct law. 13. This was the only point pressed before us in this petition. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.