JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.01.1984 passed u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short 'the Act'), by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur permitting the opposite parties 2 to 8 to make bricks and construct house on plot No. 1351 area 7 biswas 10 biswansis, situate in village Pakarpur, Pargana Aldemau, Tahsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur which is contained in Annexure No. 2, and also against the order dated 27.11.1984 (contained in Annexure No. 7) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur confirming the said order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: It has been averred in the writ petition, that the aforesaid plot No. 1351 area 11 biswas was recorded in the name of Ram Singh and others as Sirdars, who had allegedly applied before the Settlement Officer Consolidation u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act for permission to use the said plot for raising a house thereon. It has been averred that the said application was opposed by the Petitioner and Mahabir Singh opposite party No. 9 and it was ultimately rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, but neither date of order has been mentioned nor any copy of the said order has been annexed to the writ petition. The Petitioner has, however, averred that since permission was refused to Ram Singh and others, and, as such, they had felt inimical to the Petitioner and had colluded with opposite parties 3 to 8, who had raised a dispute before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer by alleging that they had prefected Sudan rights u/s 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act over the aforesaid plot No. 1351 area 11 biswas. This objection was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise between the objectors and the recorded tenure-holder Ram Singh and others. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had directed to record the names of opposite parties 3 to 8 as tenure-holders of plot No. 1351 area 11 biswas after expunging the names of Ram Singh and others, who were the recorded tenure-holders. Thereupon the opposite parties 3 to 8 had applied to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for grant of permission to use the said plot for making bricks and for constructing a house thereon. This application was filed on 09.01.1984. Thereupon the opposite parties 3 to 8 had applied to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for grant of permission to use the said plot for making bricks and for constructing a house thereon. This application was filed on 09.01.1984. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed this application, vide order dated 13.01.1984 and permitted the opposite parties 3 to 8 to use plot No. 1351/M-area 7 biswas 10 biswansis for making bricks and constructing the house by observing that if the permission to use the said plot for aforesaid purposes is granted it is not likely to affect adversely the consolidation scheme and also there is no dispute about title with regard to the said land. The opposite parties 3 to 8 were allowed to use the land within one month for making bricks and constructing house thereon. Against this order the Petitioner and opposite party No. 9 had filed revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 27.11.1984. In his order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned that after due inquiry from members of the Consolidation Committee and from Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and also after taking statement of Mahavir Singh, the Settlement Officer Consolidation had passed the aforesaid order by which he granted permission to opposite parties 3 to 8 for utilizing the said land for the aforesaid purpose. 3. During the course of arguments before the opposite party No. 1 it was asserted on behalf of revisionist that the said plot is situate in front of their house and it is liable to be reserved for extension of Abadi. In reply it appears to have been asserted on behalf of the opposite parties 3 to 8 that an area of 3 bighas 10 biswansis of plot No. 1351 has already been reserved for Abadi purposes, and as such, no question arises for the said plot to be reserved for Abadi purposes. It was further asserted on their behalf that they are tenure-holder of the said plot, and as such, permission deserved to be granted to them for utilizing the land of the aforesaid plot for the aforesaid purposes. 4. Learned by. Director of Consolidation after considering facts and circumstances of the case rejected the revision and further observed that permission cannot be refused to a tenure-holder who wants to construct a house on the plot belonging to him. 4. Learned by. Director of Consolidation after considering facts and circumstances of the case rejected the revision and further observed that permission cannot be refused to a tenure-holder who wants to construct a house on the plot belonging to him. He has also observed that since the revisionist did not hold any land near the said plot, and, as such, there is no possibility of any chak being allotted to them at that place. He has also held the revision to be time-barred as the revisionists were aware of the above order, which was passed with their consent and their signature also appear on the order sheet. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has further observed that the opposite parties 3 to 8 had started the work of constructing the house on the land in question within one month of the passing of the order by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, and, as such, permission order cannot be cancelled now. With these observations the revision filed by the Petitioner and opposite party No. 9 was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27th November, 1984. The Petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order very carefully. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner firstly, contended that since the earlier application moved by Ram Singh and others, the then recorded tenure-holders of plot No. 1351 was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, and, as such the Settlement Officer Consolidation sated illegally and without jurisdiction in entertaining another application u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act moved by opposite parties 3 to 8 wherein they had made the similar prayer seeking permission to utilize the plot in question for making bricks and constructing house thereon, In other words his contention was that having once rejected the application moved under the said provision, the Settlement Officer Consolidation could not entertain and allow the application containing similar prayer. According to him the earlier order rejecting the application would operate as res-judicata between the parties and this similar second application was not entertain able. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order, dated 13.01.1984 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 6. I have considered this argument very carefully but I do not find any merit m this contention. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order, dated 13.01.1984 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 6. I have considered this argument very carefully but I do not find any merit m this contention. It is not disputed that the opposite parties 3 to 8 had filed objection u/s 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of the land in dispute namely, plot No. 1351 area 11 was. They had claimed to have acquired rights by adverse possession. In reconciliation proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer this objection was decided on the basis of the compromise between the objectors anc1 the recorded tenure-holder Ram Singh and others. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had directed the said plot to be recorded in the names of opposite parties 3 to 8 as tenure-holders thereof on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in reconciliation proceedings before him which were validly drawn. The order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording the name of opposite parties 3 to 8 as tenure-holders was not challenged by the Petitioner nor the same has been challenged before me in this writ petition and it has not been disputed that the opposite parties 3 to 8 are the tenure-holders of the said plot. Thus if any application moved earlier by Ram Singh and others, u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation it would not affect the maintainability of the application moved by the opposite parties 3 to 8 who were held to be lawful tenure-holders of the plot in question by order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is also not disputed that prior to the filing of the present application, u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act, the opposite parties 3 to 8 had not moved any other application. The Settlement Officer Consolidation appears to have granted permission to opposite parties 3 to 8 for utilising the land for making bricks and to construct house thereon. This order was passed after consulting members of the consolidation committee and also Pradhan of the Gaon aabha. The Settlement Officer Consolidation appears to have granted permission to opposite parties 3 to 8 for utilising the land for making bricks and to construct house thereon. This order was passed after consulting members of the consolidation committee and also Pradhan of the Gaon aabha. It has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the revisionist Petitioner did not hold any land near the said plot, and, as such, there is no possibility of any chak being allotted to them at that place. Thus, considering all facts and circumstances of the case the Settlement Officer Consolidation had granted permission. This order cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction nor the application moved by opposite parties 3 to 8 u/s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act, can be said to be not maintainable and barred by principle of res-judicata as was urged by the learned Counsel. 7. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the provision contained in Section 5(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act are ultra vires as no guide line has been provided for exercising jurisdiction while considering the application on merits by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In other words, his contention was that in the absence of any provision contained in the Act and in the Rules framed there under providing a guide line to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for exercising jurisdiction vested in him u/s 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) of the Act, either for rejecting or allowing it, it would be ultra vires as it purports to vest in the Settlement Officer Consolidation unguided arbitrary powers. It was submitted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the absence of any guideline, can act arbitrarily in granting permission to one and refusing to another tenure-holder similarly situated and on quite similar facts and circumstances. Since no guide line has been provided for exercising powers by the Settlement Officer Consolidation under the said provision, it deserves to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. 8. Since no guide line has been provided for exercising powers by the Settlement Officer Consolidation under the said provision, it deserves to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. 8. It is well settled that while considering the constitutional validity of a statute or any provision of the Statute which is said to be violaive of Article 14 it is necessary to bear in mind certain well established principles which have been evolved by the courts as rule of guidance in discharge of constitutional function of judicial review. The first rule is that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. This rule is based on the assumption, judicially recognised and accepted, that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and is decisions, are based on adequate grounds. The presumption of constitutionality is indeed so strong that in order to sustain it, the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of that ness and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation See R.K. Garg v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138 . The impugned provisions of Section 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are quoted below: (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation previously obtained shall: (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof the consolidation area: Provided that a tenure-holder may continue to use his holding ,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). 10. 10. This provision was incorporated by Section 4 of the Act No. 38 of 1958 with effect from 27.11.1958, and the then existing provisions contained in Section 16A and 16B of the Act were deleted which were more or less couched in the same language. Section 5(1)(c) provides that if a tenure-holder wants to use his holding or any part thereof for the purpose other than those prescribed in Section 5(1)(c)(i) and (ii), he has to obtain permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He has also to obtain prior permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation if he wants to make a sale, gift or exchange of his holding or any part thereof Section 45A of the Act prescribes penalty for contravening provisions of Section 5. It reads as under: 45A: Penalty for contravening provisions of Section 5(1): Any person contravening the provisions of Section 5(c)(i) shall, on conviction by the court of competent jurisdiction, be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. one thousand. (2) A transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Section 5(c)(ii) shall not be valid or recognized; anything contained in any other law for the time being in force to the contrary notwithstanding. It is thus evident that if contravention of provision of Section 5(c)(i) of the Act is made, and the tenure-holder, without obtaining prior permission from Settlement Officer Consolidation uses his holding or any part thereof for the purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary etc. he shall be liable to be prosecuted before a court of competent jurisdiction and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 1000/-. No other consequence is provided regarding demolition of constructions raised over the land of his holding. But with regard to transfer made in contravention of provision of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act it has been provided, under Sub-section (2) of Section 45A that the transfer made shall not be valid or recognized notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force to the contrary. Thus the transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act would be void and would not be recognized at all, whereas the tenure-holder bringing the land to any other use not connected with the agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandary etc. Thus the transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act would be void and would not be recognized at all, whereas the tenure-holder bringing the land to any other use not connected with the agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandary etc. without obtaining proper permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would merely be liable to be prosecuted as provided u/s 45A(1) of the Act. In the absence of any other thing prescribed in the statute, it appears difficult to construe any other legal consequence to follow in the event of contravention of the provision of Section 5(1)(c)(i) of the Act by the tenure-holder in bringing any plot or portion thereof of his holding to any other use without permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 11. The provision contained in Sub-clause (i) relates to user, while the provision contained in Sub-clause (ii) is with regard to transfer. In respect of user of land and its improvement it has been provided u/s 142 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that a bhumidhar subject to the provisions of the Act, have the right to exclusive possession of all land in respect of which he is bhumidhar and to use it for any purpose whatsoever. (emphasis supplied). This provision conferred right on a Bhumidhar tenure-holder to use land ol his holding for any purpose whatsoever and no condition is prescribed under the said Act to obtain permission of any revenue authority while bringing the land under use for any purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandly etc. But once the village is notihed u/s 4(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the tenure-holder will be entitled to use his land for any other purpose not connected with agriculture etc. subject to the provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, wherein u/s 5(1)(c)(i) it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act no tenure-holder can use the land of his holding or any part thereof for the purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry etc. without obtaining prior permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is, thus an absolute prohibition created under the said provision regarding user of the land of his holding or any part thereof by a tenure-holder for any other purpose whatsoever without obtaining prior permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. without obtaining prior permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is, thus an absolute prohibition created under the said provision regarding user of the land of his holding or any part thereof by a tenure-holder for any other purpose whatsoever without obtaining prior permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The right of user of land by a Bhumidhar/tenure-holder available u/s 142 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would be exercisable only on obtaining prior permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation. This prohibition has been incorporated in the Act so that the user of the land by a tenure-holder for any other purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary etc. may not affect adversely the scheme of consolidation. The prohibition contained under Sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Section 5(1)(c) of the Act has been made so that the scheme of consolidation shall not be adversely affected. The prohibition under Sub-clause (ii) further purports to avoid fragmentation by sale, gift or exchange or any holding or part thereof. The provisions contained in Sub-clause (i) and (ii) of Section 5(1)(c), have thus been purposely enacted to serve the purpose of Legislation and to avoid any adverse effect on the consolidation scheme. The provisions, therefore, cannot be said to be invalid and ultra vires on the ground that these travel beyond the scope and purpose of the Act as was urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had next contended that the said provision has vested in the Settlement Officer Consolidation altogether unguided and uncontrolled arbitrary powers while allowing or rejecting the applications for grant of permission moved u/s 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Thus according to him this provision is invalid and ultra vires. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the old Section 16A of the Act in D.D.C. v. Din Bandhu Rai 1964 ALJ 247 has held that the question to be considered by the Settlement Officer Consolidation while dealing with an application for transfer of any holding, would be whether the proposed transfer if permitted, would affect substantially and in concrete manner any of the " principles " which have become final, or the " proposals " which have been confirmed u/s 23 of the Act. The conflict to justify a rejection must exist between a 'principles' as formulated or a concrete 'proposals as confirmed, on the one hand and transfer prayed for, on the other. If there is such a conflict, the Settlement Officer Consolidation would be entitled to refuse permission but otherwise the applicant would be entitled to the grant of permission sought for. It is for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide whether these conflicts exist and to pass a speaking order setting out the grounds for holding that such conflicts exist. 14. Although the above view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in a case relating to grant of permission to make transfer of land by a tenure-holder, but in my opinion, the same considerations would equally apply on the same parity of reasoning. If the, proposed user of land by a tenure-holder for any other purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisjiculture and poultry farming) is not likely to affect adversely the scheme of consolidation, the Settlement Officer Consolidaiicn would grant permission sought for. The absence of guide line in the matter relating to those cases covered by Section 5(1)(c)(i) would not betaken to confer on the Settlement Officer Consolidation any arbitrary and uncontrolled absolute power either to allow or reject an application according to his own whims and sweet will. If the anplication is found liable to be re.ected on some valid ground, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, in my opinion, will have to pass a speaking order setting out grounds on which application was found liable to be rejected. An application moved u/s 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) is to be disposed off by a speaking order because the order passed by the settlement Officer Consolidation ether granting or refusing to grant permission would be revisible by the Deputy Director of Consolidation u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation would be considered on merits by the superior authority under the Act and if found to be arbitrary, uniust and improper the same would be liable to be set aside. Thus the said impugned provision contained in Section 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) of the Act cannot be taken to vest uncontrolled arbitrary power in the Settlement Officer Consolidation to act according to his own whims and caprice. Thus the said impugned provision contained in Section 5(1)(c) (i) and (ii) of the Act cannot be taken to vest uncontrolled arbitrary power in the Settlement Officer Consolidation to act according to his own whims and caprice. It, therefore, cannot be said to be ultravires on the said ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 15. In the end learned Counsel for the Petitioner had urged that plot No, 1351 is situate near village Abadi in front of the Petitioner's house and, as such, no permission should have been granted to the opposite parties 3 to 8 to make constructions thereon. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has very clearly observed that this plot could not be allotted to the petitoner as he has no land of his orieinal holding near it. This plot belongs to the opposite parties 3 to 8, and, as such, there appears to be no error in granting permission to them for making bricks and to construct a house thereon. The impugned orders, in my opinion, do not suffer from any error of fact, law or jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.