JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated 13. 2. 87 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated 10-12-1985. The trial court ordered for expunging the name of Society and recording the name of Forest Department and State Government. 2. Heard the learned counsel and D.G.C. (R) and have also seen the relevant papers on the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a notice for taking action under Section 166 of U.P. Act I of 1951 was issued by A.D.M. by his order dated 4.1.85. to Tibbatan Nehru Memorial Society for expunging its name and recording the name of the State. It is alleged that under the provisions of Section 154, 154-A and 166 of U.P. Act I of 1951 this transfer was not legal hence it should again vest in the name of the Forest Department or the State Government. An objection was filed on 16.4.85. In this objection it is stated that the land was given to Dokhan Tibbatan Society by Bhoodan Yagya Samiti by its Praman Patra dated 5-10-75. Since then committee was in possession. This was in respect of plot no. 742/1 area 32 acres in village Tauli. Then later on it was exchanged with the Forest Department with the plots no. 2353 area 26.85 acres and plot no. 2361 area 5.15 acres in Arketia Grant Village. Thus the village land of one village was exchanged with the land of another village and both the lands lie in the district of Dehradun. One proceeding was also initiated by Dokhan Tibbatan Society for mutating its name in place of Tibbatan Nehru Memorial Society. Both the applications were decided by this order. The learned S.D.O. by his order dated 10-12-85 ordered for expunging name of Tibbatan Nehru of Forest Department and State Government be recorded. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 13. 2. 1987 upheld the order of the S.D.O. and dismissed the revision. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R) has contended that it was a case of mutation under Section 33-39 of the L.R. Act hence no revision lies in this court. But his argument on the face of it is not correct because the proceedings were started under Section 166 of Act I of 1951 and in the judgments of both the courts. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R) has contended that it was a case of mutation under Section 33-39 of the L.R. Act hence no revision lies in this court. But his argument on the face of it is not correct because the proceedings were started under Section 166 of Act I of 1951 and in the judgments of both the courts. The Sections 154 and 166 have been mentioned and discussed and hence it cannot be said to be a proceeding under Sections 33/39 and there is no force in his contention and it is rejected. 5. Apart from this the change of the name was sought by the Dokhan Tibbatan Society and it was a dispute in between the so called Tibbatan Nehru Memorial Foundation and Dokhan Tibbatan Society and it is for the parties to get its matter agitated or dropped and it is not the point in issue in the present case. The learned counsel for the Society does not press the same. 6. After perusing the judgment it is clear that both the courts have discussed and decided the matter on the ground that the *o called land was wrongly transferred to the society concerned in contravention of Sections 154 and 154-A, hence the consequences of Section 166 of the U.P. Act I of 1951 will follow. 7. It appears that from the very beginning the proceedings of this case is misconstrued because the provisions of Section 166 or 154 apply only in cases of transfer by a bhumidhar. The very heading of Section 154 "Restriction on transfer by a bhumidhar', and of Section 166" Transfer made in contravention of this chapter to be void", go to show that when there is any transfer or gift in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the same shall be void. Section 154-A (Which has been inserted and amended several times) is in connection with the sale or gift of land to any foreigner. In this section it is also mentioned that such transfer can be done only with the written permission of the State Government. 8. From the facts of the case it is clear that it is not a case of such transfer. Moreover no proceeding can be initiated under Sections 166, 154 or 154-A. There is no provisions for starting such proceedings. 8. From the facts of the case it is clear that it is not a case of such transfer. Moreover no proceeding can be initiated under Sections 166, 154 or 154-A. There is no provisions for starting such proceedings. It was all done and settled with the State Government itself and it was not a transfer by any bhumidhar or Zamindar. There was special Act of Bhudan Yagya Act and Special Act over-rides the general provision, hence no question of applying these sections and then quashing the aforesaid ownership of society arises in the present proceedings. In proceeding under rules 151, 152 etc. can betaken only in case of transfer not permitted under the Act but as I have held above this is not a case under this Act, it is governed by a special Act and the proceedings for quashing that cannot be taken under the provisions mentioned by the courts below. 9. It is State Government's land and the State had settled it and if the State does not want to give land to these persons, it has got wide powers to change or amend the provisions. But this cannot be said to be a proper procedure for up doing a thing done by the previous Government just to settle the refugees who had come from Tibet. 10. Thus in my opinion the provisions of Sections 154, 154-A or 166 of Act I of 1951 and the corresponding provisions of the rules do not apply in the present proceedings and the orders passed by the courts below are without jurisdiction. 11. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the judgments dated 13. 2, 1987 and 10. 12. 1985 of the courts below.