JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member Judicial - The Facts are : Karnal Singh and Smt. Agraj Kaur were tenure-holders of Khasra No. 196 Min, are 2.03 decimal. On favouring Karam Singh's. Purchaser Karam Singh's moves a mutation application in Tahsildar's. On 11-2-1980 the application is rejected because sale is seen to violates Section 168-A, Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. One Ram Kumar takes us the matter in an application before Sub-Divisional Officer, Hasanpur. The complaint is that sale is of a fragment out of total area 2.03 acres, which itself is less than 3? acres. Order sheet Karam Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer has commenced legal action under Section 168-A, L.R. ZA & L.R. Act. Purchasers Dharam Singh's lodge an Objection in Opposition on 23-4-1984. Their pleading has set forth the contention that applicant cares so less spell out a contention a miscellaneous application is a thin gruel for legal actions. The land is situate in non-agricultural area and is purchased for purpose of Abadi. The one purchaser Dharam Singh is unemployed graduate and holds a diploma in sugar cane proceeding. That Section 168-A ZA&LR Act has no application. Parties have been given chance of hearing. On 8-7-1985 Sub-Divisional 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 Government from the date of transfer. 3. Aggrieved by the order, Dharm Singh's a carry an appeal in commissioner's. On 2-4-1986 Additional Commissioner enters an order allowing the appeal ; the order of court below dated 8-7-1985 in set aside. Aggrieved, Ram Kumar lodges a second appeal. 4. Heard the counsel for and against. 5. The proceeding begins on a complaint by Ram Kumar in Sub-Divisional 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. 3-6-1981) Section 167 of the Act enumerates consequences of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166 of the Act. Section 168-A is only concerete definition telling when will an infringement occur in transfer of land. The same is substantive in import ; they are not essentially procedural provision. These sections can not sponser and sustain a legal action. Section 302 I.P.C. defines offence of murder. Section 168-A is only concerete definition telling when will an infringement occur in transfer of land. The same is substantive in import ; they are not essentially procedural provision. These sections can not sponser 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.L.R. Act has only some, but not all, procedural provisions. It seems to me that when in a suit or legal proceeding a matter of breach of Section 168-A is raised, the court is competent to address all implications. It was a proper-tack if Tahsildar in mutation under section 34 Land Revenue Act were to stimulate Sub-Divisional 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 Section 163, 169 and 168-A 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 168-A, Z.A. & L.R. 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.