JUDGMENT : Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. Whether the word "transfer" used in section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) as it stood prior to the amendment of the Act by Act 27 of 1975 includes a gift, is the main question raised in this writ application. 2. Prior to its amendment section 5 stood as under: "5. Land not to be transferred without sanction:-During the period commencing from the date of the publication of the notification under section 3 to the date when the scheme of consolidation comes into operation in any notified area, no person shall transfer or partition any land in such area, except with the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer, and, if the sanction is granted, the transfer or partition, as the case may be, shall be subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the land under the scheme of consolation in respect of' such area." This section was amended by Act 27 of 1975 and the following was substituted in place of the old section:- "5. No. transfer without sanctions :-(1) After the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under sub-section (1) of section 10 no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by way of sale, gift exchange or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer and if the sanction is granted, such transfer or partition, as the case may be shall be subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the land under the scheme of consolidation prepared with respect to that area." From the above it is apparent that in place of words "transfer" or "partition" the words "transfer" any land in the notified area by way of sale "gift, exchange or partition" were inserted. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even though the words "sale, gift and exchange" were not mentioned in the section prior to its amendment the word "transfer" included in its ambit the words "sale, gift or exchange" which are the several modes of transfer. 4. It may be necessary here to state some facts for appreciating the submission made above. 4. It may be necessary here to state some facts for appreciating the submission made above. One Ram Kishun Singh had three sons namely, Gharbharan Singh, Ganga Singh and Sheodayal Singh, Gharbharan Singh died long time back leaving two sons, namely, Baldeo Singh and Hulas Singh who are petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner no. 1 Bhaiya Ram Singh is a subsequent purchaser from Sheodayal Shigh, Ganga Singh died issueless Sheodayal Singh who died on 15.9.1975 had two daughters, namely, Sonia Devi and Mossomat Buchania, respondents 4 and 5. Record of rights were prepared and finally published sometimes in 1971 recording half share in the name of petitioners 2 and 3 and half in the name of Sheodayal Singh. On account of certain family arrangements and the type of land 1.41 acres were recorded in the names of petitioners 2 and 3 and 3.24 acres in the name of Sheodayal Singh. Consolidation proceedings under the Act were started sometimes in the year 1973 and the notice under section 10 (1) of the Act was published on 30.8.1983. On 27.12.1974 Sheodayal Singh executed a deed of gift in favour of his two daughters-1.67 1/2 acres in favour of respondent no. 4 and 1.41 1/4 acres in favour of respondent no. 5. This was admittedly without taking any permission from the consolidation authorities. Sheodayal Singh revoked this deed of gift on 13.1.1975 and again by a registered document executed a deed of gift in favour of respondent no.6 son of petitioner no. 3 Hulash Singh in respect of 88½ acres of land and the house. This was also admittedly without taking any permission from the consolidation authorities. On 16.7.1975 it appears that Sheodayal Singh transferred 82 acres of land in favour of petitioner no. 1 after asking permission of the consolidation authorities. Respondent Consolidation Officer by an ORDER :dated 19-4-1976 accepted the deed of gift and ORDER :ed for correction of the entries in favour of Sonia and Buchania, respondents 4 and 5. This ORDER :is contained in Aunexure-2. The petitioners filed an appeal which was heard and disclosed of by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Case No. 132 of 1977-78 on 8.11.1977 (vide Annexure-4). The learned Deputy Director Consolidation held that by virtue or the provisions of Consolidation Act, then in force the said deed of gift which was executed without the permission of the Consolidation Officer was void ab initio. The learned Deputy Director Consolidation held that by virtue or the provisions of Consolidation Act, then in force the said deed of gift which was executed without the permission of the Consolidation Officer was void ab initio. He also held that the subsequent deeds executed by Sheodayal Sirgh on 13.1.1975, that is to say, the deed of gift in favour of respondent no. 6 and the revocation of the earlier deed of gift were also likewise void and, therefore, no court of law could take cognizance of such transactions. According to him the sale deeds dated 16.7.1975 executed by Sheodayal Singh, father of respondents 4 & 5 transferring 82 acres of land with the permission of the Consolidation Officer were bonafide transactions. It was, therefore, ORDER :ed that the Consolidation Officer will record the name of petitioner no. 1 Bhaiya Ram Singh in respect of the land purchased by him after due permission. For the remaining lands in the share of Sheodayal Singh it was ORDER :ed that his legal heirs should be noted and allotted chaks. Sonia and Buchania, respondents 4 and 5 filed Revision Case No. 1051 of 1971 under section 35 of the Act. The Director, Consolidation by his ORDER :dared 21.8.1980 contained in Annexure-5 upset the appellate ORDER :on a finding that prior to the amendment in the year 1975 permission was required to be taken on account of sale or partition only and not in cases of gift or exchange. According to him the word "transfer" as it stood earlier did not include gift or exchange. Accordingly, the learned Director, Consolidation set aside the ORDER :passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and ORDER :ed that respondents 4 and 5 be recorded separately for the lands covered In the deed of gift dated 27.12.1974 and jointly in respect of remaining lands of Sheodayal Singh under khata no. 42 and 100 along with their mother, if alive. 5. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey appearing for the petitioner has challenged the ORDER :s passed by the Consolidation officer contained in Annexure-2 and the ORDER :passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Annexure-5 on the grounds, inter alia, that a gifts only a mode of transfer and was not permissible even before 1975 amendment. A gift is a voluntary transfer of property by one person to another without any consideration or compensation therefor. A gift is a voluntary transfer of property by one person to another without any consideration or compensation therefor. According to Webster's Thud New International Dictionary a girt is "something that is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation". According to Halsbury's Laws of England IVth Edition page 20" a gift intervivos may be defined shortly as the transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously while the donor is alive and not in expectation of death". The Transfer of Properly Act also defines it as a voluntary transfer. It is common knowledge that by a deed of gift a person gives to another person certain property and does no more retain any right and interest in that property. There is, therefore, no difficulty in holding that the word "transfer" as it stood in section 5 prior to its amendment of 1975 included the gift also and sanction was necessary before executing any gift. The amendment which included the words "sale, gift and exchange" in section 5 are only descriptive. 6. Mr. Janeshwar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, however, tried to defend the ORDER :passed by the Director, Consolidation in Annexure-5 on the ground that the word "gift" is not mentioned in rule 4 or Form No.1 which lays down the procedure for sanction. He submitted that according to section 6 of the Act a person intending to transfer or partition any land shall make an application for sanction in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars. According to rule 4 an application for sanction or transfer or partition under section 6 shall be made before the Consolidation officer in Form No.1 containing the particulars mentioned therein. Item No.5 of Form No.1 mentions the "nature of the proposed transfer whether sale, lease or simple mortgage or usufructuary mortgage with full details of the sale, lease or mortgage". This according to Mr. Singh does not mention a gift. I do not find any substance in this submission. Item No.5 of Form refers to sale, lease, simple mortgage or usufructuary mortgage which modes of transfer were not mentioned in section as it stood prior to amendment. The only words mentioned therein' were "transfer or partition". Item No. 5 of Form I or rule 4 are not exhaustive. I do not find any substance in this submission. Item No.5 of Form refers to sale, lease, simple mortgage or usufructuary mortgage which modes of transfer were not mentioned in section as it stood prior to amendment. The only words mentioned therein' were "transfer or partition". Item No. 5 of Form I or rule 4 are not exhaustive. I, therefore, hold and find that the word "transfer" as mentioned in section 5 prior to its amendment included a gift also which is only a mode of transfer. After the consolidation proceeding started sanction was necessary for executing a deed of gift also. The deed of gift dated 24.12.1974 executed by Sheodayal Singh in favour of his two daughters, respondents 4 and 5 without sanction were illegal and void. Similarly the deed of gift executed on 13.1.1975 in favour of respondent no. 6 it was also without sanction was also void. Sheodayal Singh had transferred by different sale deeds an area of .82 acres of land after obtaining sanction from the consolidation authorities on 16.7.1975 in favour of petitioner no. l. Petitioner no. 1, therefore, must be held to have acquired right and title over .82 acres or land purchased by him on 16.7.1975. To this extent the application of petitioner no. 1 must succeed. 7. At the close of the argument the application of petitioner no. 1 Bhaiya Ram Singh was orally allowed to the extent as indicated above. The reasons have been set out above. 8. In the result the application of petitioner no. 1 Bhaiya Ram Singh is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above i.e., he shall be entitled to .82 acres of land purchased by him for which a Chak may be curved out in his favour. He application of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Sonia Devi and Mossomat Buchania shall be entitled to the rest of the property as having been inherited by them from their father Sheodayal Singh. The ORDER :in Annexure-5 passed by the Director of Consolidation is set aside and the appellate ORDER :passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Annexure-4 is restored. There shall be no ORDER :as to costs. Application of petitioner no. 1 partly allowed and applications of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 dismissed.