JUDGMENT P.Singh, Member - These second appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed on 7-5-84 by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi, dismissing appeals No. 27/24 and 28/25 of 1983-84 and confirming the order dated 13-11-81 passed by the S.D.O./Assistant Collector First Class, Mauranipur, district Jhansi. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Har Prasad, Son of Baijnath, resident of village Kharka Maaf, Tahsil Mauranipur, purchased land in the names of his minor sons through three separate sale deeds, that he had already 20.87 acres of land in his possession, that he purchased 2.97 acres of land on 15.4.77 in the name of Naipal Singh, minor, and again purchased 2.54 acres of laud in the name of Naipal Singh, minor, through sale deed dated 11-7-77, 3.35 acres of land was purchased in the name of Sita Ram, minor, on 21-7-77, that luce Har Prasad had more than 19.75 acres of land already in his name, all the sale deeds were void. A notice was given to the father of the minors who filed an objection on 19-10-81 and thereafter he absented. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an ex parte order on 13-11-81 holding that the land should vest in the Gaon Sabha. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that no notice was sent to the appellants and the suit could not have been decided ex parte against them due to non-appearance of their father, that the land could not be ordered to have vested with the Gaon Sabha, that under Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the Sub Divisional Officer had no power to cancel the sale deeds in favour of the appellants and only the Collector was empowered to do so, that no suit was filed by the Gaon Sabha, and that since consolidation operations were going on the village, the proceedings were not maintainable. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R) submits that Sub-Divisional Officer was an Assistant Collector First Class and had powers of Collector and there was no provision for filing of a suit by the Gaon Sabha, and that notice was issued, and as such, the proceedings were maintainable. 6. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R) submits that Sub-Divisional Officer was an Assistant Collector First Class and had powers of Collector and there was no provision for filing of a suit by the Gaon Sabha, and that notice was issued, and as such, the proceedings were maintainable. 6. I find that the transfers in the instant case were made in contravention of provisions contained in Section 154 of U.P. Act I of 1951, Section 154, as it stood at the time of execution of these sale deeds, read as under : "154. Restrictions on the transfer by a Bhumidhar.-(1) save as provided in subjection (2), no bhumidhar shall have the rights to transfer, by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens, to any person where the seller shall, as a result of such sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held by himself, or together with his family will, in the aggregate, exceed 5.04 hectares (12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh. (2) Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the land tenures for the time being in force, the State Government may authorise a transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1), if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered co-operative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its needs, or that the transfer is in the interest of general public. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression 'family' shall mean the transferee, his or her wife or husband (as the case may be), and minor children, and where transferee is a minor, also his or her parents." From the explanation given to this section, it is evident that the minor children were in the family of their father, Har Prasad, and the land held by Har Prasad exceeded the prescribed limit. 7. From the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 154, in the instant case it appears that the acquisition of land by minors contravened the provisions contained under Section 154 of U.P. Act I of 1951. Section 166 provides that any transfer made by or on behalf of sirdar or asami in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void. Section 166 provides that any transfer made by or on behalf of sirdar or asami in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void. From this, it is evident that the transfer made in favour of minor sons of Har Prasad were void. 8. Section 163 of U.P. Act I of 1951, as it originally stood, provided as under:- "163. Consequences of void transfers by Bhumidhars.(1) Where any holding or part thereof 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 moto or on the application of any person, and after making such inquiry as he 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 the transferee. (2) Where the transfer of any holding or part has been declared to be void under sub-section (1), the following consequences shall ensue, 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." Section 163 has been deleted by U.P. Act 20 of 1982 and has been substituted by Section 167 which reads as under "167. (1) The following consequences shall ensue 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 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." 9. The learned counsel for the appellants says that action under Section 163 could be taken by the Collector and not by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and that since these proceedings were concluded on 13-11-81, hence the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of amended Section 167 were applicable. The learned Additional Commissioner says that the proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Har Prasad appeared in the court on 13-3-81, and since the proceedings were taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the amendment, hence, in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it was the Sub-Divisional Officer who could proceed with the matter. I find that there is a misconception in the mind of the learned counsel for the appellants. Sub-Divisional Officer is an Assistant Collector First Class and as such he could exercise the powers of the Collector in respect of the provisions made under U.P. Act I of 1951 unless expressly prohibited by the provisions of the Act. I find that there is a misconception in the mind of the learned counsel for the appellants. Sub-Divisional Officer is an Assistant Collector First Class and as such he could exercise the powers of the Collector in respect of the provisions made under U.P. Act I of 1951 unless expressly prohibited by the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act reads as under:- "3 (4) "Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act." 10. In view of this, I am of the opinion that Sub-Divisional Officer being the Assistant Collector First Class notified for discharging the functions of the Collector under the Act, had the power to proceed with the matter, and he consequently concluded the proceedings on 31-11-81. On account of this, I am of the opinion that proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer were within his powers. I do not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that since proceedings were initiated prior to the substitution of Section 167 through U.P. Act 20 of 1982, hence the Sub-Divisional Officer had the power to the proceed with the matter. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to a decision reported in 1983 R.D. 272, in which in para 6 of the order passed by this court, it has been held by a learned Member that it was the Collector who had the power to take action against void transfers. I find that there is no conflict between the view of the learned Member taken in the decision cited above, and my views. Since the Sub-Divisional Officer was an Assistant Collector First Class empowered to discharge functions of a Collector, hence, there was nothing wrong in saying that it was the Collector who had the power to proceed with the matter. 12. The second point raised before this Court was that since the village was notified for consolidation operations, proceedings under Section 163 or Section 167 could not be taken. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. The second point raised before this Court was that since the village was notified for consolidation operations, proceedings under Section 163 or Section 167 could not be taken. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Here the question involved was not of declaration of title but of declaring the transfer to be void and ordering vesting of property in the State. Hence, the bar of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not at all attracted to the proceedings. The only error that was committed by the trial court was that it ordered vesting of land in Gaon Sabha which was not proper. It is hereby ordered that the said land will vest in State of U.P. 13. Consequently, these second appeals fail having no force and are dismissed. 14. This order governs Second Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1983-84/district Jhansi.