JUDGMENT S.K. Sahgal, Chairman - These are two revisions under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, dated 14-5-1974, confirming the order dated 25-8-1973, passed by the SDO Varanasi, in a mutation case. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Gulab Nath and others revisionists and Mangala Prasad and Karata Prasad, opposite parties in this revision, applied separately, for mutation of their names over the common land in dispute in place of Smlt. Sukhnita recorded tenure-holder. Gulab Nath claimed mutation on the basis of a gift deed dated 303-1970 Mangala Prisad claimed mutation of his name on the basis of sale deed 18-6-1963 executed by Smt. Sukhnita prior to the execution of the gift deed Both the parties hence filled objection against each other. The SDO allowed mutation in favour Gulab Nath and others. Mangala Prasad and Kamla Prasad being aggrieved by this order of the SDO went up in revision to the Additional Commissioner, who upheld the order of the SDO giving rise to the present revision. 3. An application has been moved stating that Mangala Prasad revisionist no. (1) died on 15-9-1979 leaving Islok Kumar as his minor son under guardianship of his mother Smt. Kamlawati to be substituted in his place as his heir and legal representative. No objection has been filed against the proposed substitution despite opportunity allowed to the opposite party Hence substitution is hereby allowed. 4. Further the opposite party has filed certain papers as additional evidence. No papers have been filed in rebuttal thereof despite opportunity allowed to the revisionist. These documents pertain to criminal proceedings and are not relevant in the present case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that tenure-holder had extinguished his rights in the land in dispute by effecting the two transactions of transfer by way of sale and gift when the land was in consolidation operations, without the prior permission of the Consolidation Officer and in contravention of 5(c) (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that tenure-holder had extinguished his rights in the land in dispute by effecting the two transactions of transfer by way of sale and gift when the land was in consolidation operations, without the prior permission of the Consolidation Officer and in contravention of 5(c) (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. By this section, the tenure holder was stated to have come within the mischief of Section 189 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 167 of the same Act and he was accordingly no longer entitled to remain as the bhumidhar of the land and therefore, to transfer it. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued on the other hand that Section 189 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act applies only in the event of a violation of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act. The Consolidation of Holdings Act provides its own penalty for actions in contravention of that Act, specific reference being made to Section 45-A(2) of that Act. 6. I have carefully followed the arguments of learned counsel and perused the record. It is admitted that the land in dispute was sought to be transferred, through a sale-deed in favour of the revisionist and through a gift-deed in favour of the opposite party during the year 1968, when admittedly the village was under consolidation operations. The S.C.(C) by his order dated 7-3-1970 had held both the deeds to be invalid and had refused mutation. On the village being de-notified the opposite party apparently obtained a fresh gift-deed dated 30-3-1970 from the tenure-holder and applied for mutation on that basis. Objection of Mangala Prasad, revisionist, on the ground of possession rising from earlier invalidated sale transaction was rejected by not the lower courts and mutation was allowed. 7. The relevant portion of Sec. 189 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read as follows: - 189 (aa) "when the holding or part hereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act." The underlined portion clearly indicates that bhumidhari rights of a tenure-holder get extinguished only when a transfer has been effected in contravention of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. 8. Sections 163, 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act spell out the consequences of void transfers, made in contravention of different provisions of the Act. Section 163 seeks to vest such land in the State Government free from all encumbrances. There is no mention in these sections of any violation of Section 5(c) (ii) or any other provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 45-a of the Consolidation Act provides a specific penalty for violation of the provisions of Section 5(c) (i) and 5(c) (ii) and these penalties are in substance different from those under Section 189 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R, Act and the other sections under that Act referred to above. 9. In view of the foregoing analysis, I find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. I see nothing wrong with the orders of the two lower courts in allowing mutation in favour of the opposite party on the basis of gift-deed dated 30-3-1970. There is therefore no force in the revision which is accordingly dismissed. 10. This order will also govern Revision No. 302 (La)-1973-74 District Varanasi.