JUDGMENT 1. The Facts Are: Karnal Singh and Smt. Agraj Kaur were tenureholders of Khasra no. 196 Min. area 2.03 decimal. On 29121978 they execute a saledeed of but only of an area of 16 decimals favouring Karam Singh's. Purhaser Karam Singh s moves a mutation application in Tahsildar's. On 1121980 the application is rejected because sale is seen to violate Section 168A, ZA & LR Act. 2. One Ram Kumar takes up the matter in an application before SubDivisional Officer, Hasanpur. The complaint is that sale is of a fragment out of total area 203 acres, which itself is less than 3.18 acres, Order sheet dated 761979 bears out that on an application and affidavit of Ram Kumar Singh, SubDivisional Officer has commenced legal action under Section 168A, ZA & LR Act. Purchasers Dharam Singh's lodge an objection in opposition on 2341984. Their pleading has set forth the contention that cares so less to spell out a (sic) a miscellaneous application is a thin gruel for legal action The land is situate in nonagricultural area and is purchased for purpose of Abadi. That one purchaser Dharam Singh is unemployed graduate and holds a diploma in sugar cane proceedings. That section 168A ZA & LR Act has no application. Parties have been given chance of hearing. On 871985 SubDivisional Officer enters an order declaring that it is transfer by sale of a fragment situate in a consolidated area and is void. The land is vested in the State Govt. from the date of transfer. 3. Aggrieved by the order, Dharam Singh's carry an appeal in Commissioner's. On 241986 Additional Commissioner enters an order allowing the appeal; the order of court below dated 871985 is set aside. Aggrieved, Ram Kumar lodges a second appeal. 4. Heard the counsel for and against. 5. The proceeding beings on a complaint by Ram Kumar in SubDivisional Officer's. Complainant Ram Kumar has no concern whatsoever with the land; he has no locus standi in the matter. More, Section 163 is omitted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 (w.e.f. 361981). Section 167 of the Act enumerates consequences of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166 of the Act. Section 168A is only concrete definition telling when will an infringe occur in transfer of land. The same is substantive in import; they are not essentially procedural provision. Section 167 of the Act enumerates consequences of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166 of the Act. Section 168A is only concrete definition telling when will an infringe occur in transfer of land. The same is substantive in import; they are not essentially procedural provision. These section cannot sponsor and sustain a legal action. Section 302 I.P.C. defines offence of murder. The trial is apt under provision of criminal procedure code. Z.A. and L.R. Act has only some, but not all, procedural provisions. It seems 10 me that when in a suit or legal proceeding a matter of breach of section 168A is raised, the court is competent to address all implications. It was a propertack if Tahsildar in mutation under Section 34, Land Revenue Act were to stimulate SubDivisional Officer for inquiry and legal action. That was not done. A stranger Ram Kumar has no locus standi to move the court to sustain a proceeding under Sections 163, 167 and 168A of the Act. For this reason the application is not maintainable. 6. In view of foregoing, it is needless to dwell on the question of fragment under section 168A, ZA & LR Act. By the order of Additional Commissioner the application of Ram Kumar stands dismissed. I see no persuasive reasons to disturb the finding. However, the application is dismissed for different reasons. Second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Second Appeal dismissed.)