JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra 1. I rejected this writ petition in limine with the observations that the reasons for my rejection of the writ petition will follow. The reasons are hereunder : The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India challenging the order of the Addl District Judge, Varanasi, dated 31-5-1990 granting permission to respondeat no. 2 for mortgaging the agricultural land in favour of respondent no. 4 for getting loan for the welfare project which respondent no. 2 has to carry on. The Addl. District Judge has granted the permission and has rejected the objection of the petitioner. Sri S. K. Varma, the learned counsel for the petitoner has made following submissions before me for challenging the aforesaid order :- (1) That the allotment of agricultural land in favour of respondent no. 2 by the Gaon Sabha was completely in violation of provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms act, as such since the allotment itself was invalid, the application for permission of transfer of the land in favour of respondent no. 4 under section 5-A of the societies Registration act was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. 2. That one of the terms of the lease was that if within two years the proposed constructions for which lease is granted are not started then the lease will stand cancelled and the lease will revert back to the Gaon Sabha. The contention of Sri Verma is that within two years, the respondent no. 2 failed to start the constructions and the land reverted back to the Gaon Sabha. For this reason also, it is contended that since the land did not belong to respondent no. 2, there was absolutely no justification for the Addl. District Judge to have granted the permission to respondent no. 2 for mortgaging the land in favour of respondent no. 4. While elucidating the submission, it was contended that the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge that the constructions were started within two years, was patently perverse as it was based on inadmissible evidence and also the finding was contrary to the evidence on record. 2 for mortgaging the land in favour of respondent no. 4. While elucidating the submission, it was contended that the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge that the constructions were started within two years, was patently perverse as it was based on inadmissible evidence and also the finding was contrary to the evidence on record. That section 155 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act prohibits a bhumidhar from mortgaging the agricultural land and section 190 (1) (cc) of the same Act provides that where the holding or a part thereof has been transferred or leased out or used in contravention of the Act, then the bhumidhar with non transferable rights will extinguish his interest in the holding. The submission is that since the respondent no. 2 has mortgaged his land in favour of respondent no. 4 in violation of section 155 of the Act, his interest in the holding extinguished in view of section 190 (11 (cc) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the submission again is that the Addl. District Judge could not have granted permission to respondent no. 2 for mortgaging the land as the interest of respondent no. 2 extinguished in the holding. 3. That it was mentioned in the resolution of the Gaon Sabha and the lease granted to respondent no. 2 that the trees and the streets of the land mortgaged in favour of respondent no. 2 will continue to be used, as trees and streets will not be mortgaged and since the respondent no. 2 has mortgaged the entire plot in favour of respondent no. 4, the mortgage was patently illegal and the Addl. District Judge committed an error in granting permission for such an illegal mortgage. 4. That under the societies Registration Act, the 'court' means only the District Judge and as such the Addl. District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the objection raised by the petitioner. In this connection it was also submitted that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question that land continued to belong to the Society. I gave a careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. So far as the first submission is concerned that the lease was granted in favour of respondent no. In this connection it was also submitted that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question that land continued to belong to the Society. I gave a careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. So far as the first submission is concerned that the lease was granted in favour of respondent no. 2 by the Land Management committee in violation of the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms act, the remedy is available to the petitioner under section 198 (4) of the same act where it is specifically provided that the collector may on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment may cancel the allotment of any lease if the Collector is satisfied that the allotment is irregular. It is open to the petitioner to approach the collector for cancellation of the lease if the same has been made in violation of any of the provisions of the Act. 5. So far as the second submission of the petitioner is concerned, I have looked into the finding of the Addl. District Judge and on a consideration of the evidence, the Addl. District Judge has reached the conclusion that respondent no. 2 has started constructions of the project for which the land was allotted within the permissible time, as such the lease did not stand cancelled as provided in the resolution of the Gaon Sabha granting lease in favour of respondent no. 2. I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge on the said point does not suffer from any such illegality which calls for interference in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 6. The third submission of the petitioner also lacks merit. Section 155 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prohibits mortgage of land by a bhumidhar where the bhumidhar purposes to transfer the possession of the land also aloagwith the mortgage. Section 155 prohibits a mortgage with possession. Pleading agricultural land for taking Loan keeping possession with the bhumidhar is not prohibited by section 155. The idea behind section 155 was that the agriculturist should be protected from transferring his land in favour of anybody with possession which reasults in depriving the agriculturist from his land itself. Section 155 did not prohibit simple mortgage and taking LOAN in lieu of such mortgage. The idea behind section 155 was that the agriculturist should be protected from transferring his land in favour of anybody with possession which reasults in depriving the agriculturist from his land itself. Section 155 did not prohibit simple mortgage and taking LOAN in lieu of such mortgage. Besides this, respondent no. 2 did not become bhumidhar of the land in dispute as the Gaon Sabha leased the Loan in favour of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 became only leassee or asami of the Gaon Sabha. For this reason also, section 155 of the Act was also not attracted; Since section 155 was not attracted, there is no question of attracting section 190 (1) (cc). However, it may also be stated that the Addl. District Judge while granting permission under section 5A of the Societies Registration Act is not required to adjudicate upon the questions contemplated by section 155 read with section 190 (1) (cc) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No such point was raised before the Addl. District Judge by the petitioner. In this view of the matter also, the submission has no force and is accordingly rejected. So far as the fourth point of the petitioner regarding mortgaging the entire land is concerned, this is between the mortgagor and the mortgagee to see as to for what part the mortgagee is advancing the money in favour of the mortgagor. If there is a provision that the trees and streets will not be a part of the lease, then there is no question of the trees and the streets also being mortgaged. The arguments is prima facie misconceieved and is rejected. 7. So far as the fifth point is concerned, same also deserves to be rejected. Section 5-A Explanation I, provides that the word 'court' shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 13. Section 13 of the Act provides ;- The adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the principal court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which the registered office of the society is situate." According to counsel, the principal court of original civil jurisdiction can only be the District Judge and not Addl. District Judge. The submission is misconceived. District Judge. The submission is misconceived. The Additional District Judge also exercises the same powers which the District Judge exercises in respect of original civil jurisdiction and the powers are delegated to the Addl. District Judge as permissible under the relevant statutes. The Addl. District Judge was exercising the powers of original civil jurisdiction and was court for the purposes of section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 8. It may also be pointed out at this stage that the petitioner did not raise any objection to the allotment of land in favour of respondent no. 3 by the Gaon Sabha for two years and for the first time, the petitioner is raising all these objections at the time when respondent no. 2 was trying to take loan for completing the public project under-taken by it. Respondent no. 2 is a public institution and is engaged in several welfare measures for providing facilities to the people of the locality. These measures deserve our commendation and the courts should not come in the way of such welfare projects unless there is some patent illegality or irregularity in such matters. Section 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended in Uttar Pradesh is as under: "5-A. Registration on transfer or property. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law contract or other instrument to the contrary, it shall not be lawful for the governing body of a society registered under this Act or any of its members to transfer without the previous approval of the court, any immovable property belonging to any such society. (2) Every transfer made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be void. Explanation I-The word 'court' shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 13. Explanation II-The expression 'transfer' shall for the purposes of this section mean- (a) a mortgage, charge, sale, gift or, exchange (b) lease for a term exceeding five years, or (c) irrevocable licence." The said section has been enacted for putting a check on the society from transferring its immovable properties without the previous approval of the court so that the court may also look into it and give permission only if the court is satisfied that the transfer of any immovable property is being made in the interest of the society and not in the manner which is detrimental to the interest of the society. This is the entire scope of said section. The only objection which is contemplated within the purview of the aforesaid section is that the governing body of the society is proposing to transfer its immovable property which is contrary to the interest of the institution. It is not within the scope of the said section to examine as to whether the society has ceased to be the owner of its immovable property. If there is any such case, the forum is not section 5A of the societies regitration act. The concerned person may have his remedy in some other provision of law. All the submissions and objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this court are outside the scope of section 5-A of the societies Registration act in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In this view of the matter I have rejected all the contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is rejected in limine.