R. B. MEHROTRA, J. The complex issue of consequence to ensue on publication of notification in the official Gazette under Section 4 (2) bringing certain villages under consolidation scheme is haunting the cause of justice in the present case. Factual matrix of the case is as short as it can be. 2. On 15-6-1979 a notification under Section 4 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official Gazette notifying inter alia that the agricultural land situate in village, Bajhedi, Pargana, Jhinjhana, district Muzaffarnagar has been brought under the consolidation scheme. 3. Plot No. 698, area 12 Bigha, plot No. 699, area 1 Bigha, 13 Biswa, plot No. 700, area 12 Biswa, plot No. 701, area 12 Biswa, total 4 plots, area 3 Bigha 9 Biswa of Khata No. 147 in the aforesaid village was recorded as bhumidhari in the name of Beg Raj, who has been arrayed as respon dent No. 4 in the present writ petition. The present petitioners, namely Nagina and Shyam Lai sons of Data Ram purchased the aforesaid plots by means of a registered sale-deed on 16-7-1979, from respondent No. 4, without obtaining permission from Settle ment Officer Consolidation. 4. On 28-8-1989 the requisite publica tion in the unit where the village was situate, was made in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 4 (2) of the Act read with Rule 62 of the Rules framed under Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). 5. On the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act praying therein that since the name of Beg Raj respondent con tinue to be recorded in the basic year, the name of the petitioners be mutated in place of aforesaid Beg Raj on the basis of the aforesaid sale- deed. Beg Raj filed an af fidavit before the Assistant Consolidation Officer admitting the execution of the sale-deed and also admitting that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land. Beg Raj filed an af fidavit before the Assistant Consolidation Officer admitting the execution of the sale-deed and also admitting that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land. Aforesaid Beg Raj, respondent, however, contested the matter before the Consolida tion Officer and contended that since the sale-deed was executed in violation of sec tion 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act, it was void in view of Section 45-A of the Act and as such, the petitioners name cannot be mutated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed. 6. All the three Consolidation courts, namely, Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the objection raised by Beg Raj and held that the sale-deed was a void document and no rights accrued to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed. Beg Raj, however, taking the advantage of his own conduct to nullify the claim of the petitioners sought permission on 10-9-1981 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to transfer the disputed land as per require ment of Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation granted permission. Consequent thereto Sri Beg Raj executed a sale-deed in favour of Indra Pal, Har Pal and Yash Pal who have been arrayed as respondents No. 5 to 7 in the writ petition. The present writ petition is being contested by the aforesaid respondents No. 5 to 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf supporting the judgment of the Consolidation Authorities. 7. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai for the petitioner and Sri A. R. Dubey for the respondents. Both have filed their submis sions in writing which form part of the record. 8. After having executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, the transfer of Sri Beg Raj took a somersault on the basis of a provision of law, to undo the sale-deed ex ecuted by himself and having pocketed the consideration money, contested the proceedings, on technical ground and later on sold out the same land to respondents No. 5 to 7, thereby getting consideration money twice from two sets of transferee for the same land. The equity of the case is directly against aforesaid Sri Beg Raj. 9. The equity of the case is directly against aforesaid Sri Beg Raj. 9. However, the issue which arises in this petition is as to how to interpret the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Act in rela tion to Section 4 (2) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid two sections, as they stood on the relevant date, are being reproduced for convenience: "4. Declaration and notification regarding consolidation- (\) (a) The State Government may, where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority, who may be empowered in this be half by the District Deputy Director of Consolida tiotion- (1) to enter upon the survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise, and to take levels of any land in such area; (ii) to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation; and (iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. (b) The District Deputy Director of Con solidation shall cause public notice of the declara tion issued under clause (a) to be given at con venient places in the said district or part thereof. (2) (a) When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification to this effect. (b) Ever) such notification shall be publish ed in the official Gazette and in each unit in the said area. " (Emphasis added) 5. Effect of notification under Section 4 (2)-- (1) Upon the publication of the notification under sub- section (2) of Section 4 in the Official Gazette, the consequences:, as hereinafter set forth, shall, the date specified thereunder till the publi cation of notification under Section 52 or sub-sec tion (1) of Section 6 as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification under sub-sec tion (2) of Section 4 relates. (Emphasis added) (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permis sion in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion, previously obtained shall- (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticul ture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area. " (Emphasis added) 10. A reading of Section 4 (2) of the Act makes it obligatory for effective implemen tation of Section 4 that two requirements were necessary for commencement of the consolidation proceedings in the unit: (1) Publication of the notification in the official Gazette. (2) Publication in each unit in the said area. Rule 62 of the rules provide a detailed procedure for publication in the unit. The aforesaid Rule is as under: "62. Section 54 (2) (i) and (ii)-The Con solidation Lekhpal shall maintain a proceedings Book in C. H. Form 29 for recording proceedings of the meetings of the Consolidation Committee. He shall also maintain a diary in C. H. Form 30 showing the details of work done by him each day. A diary in this Form shall also be maintained by the Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer. " The aforesaid Rule refers to C. H. Form 29 and C. H. Form 30. The aforesaid forms provide that a proceeding^ book will be maintained wherein the date on which publication is made in the unit, the number of the members of the Consolidation Committee, description of proceedings and sig natures of the members are to be main tained. C. H. Form 30 is for maintaining a diary of the Consolidation Lekhpal/consolidator/assistant Consolidation Officer bringing the details of the date, place of halt at night by the concerned officer, descrip tion of the work done. 11. Section 3 (8) of the Act defines the word publication in unit. C. H. Form 30 is for maintaining a diary of the Consolidation Lekhpal/consolidator/assistant Consolidation Officer bringing the details of the date, place of halt at night by the concerned officer, descrip tion of the work done. 11. Section 3 (8) of the Act defines the word publication in unit. The relevant section is quoted herein: " (8) publication in the unit or publish in the unit with reference to any document means reading out of the document in the unit on a date of which prior notice shall be given by the beat of drum and proclamation by beat of drum in any other customary mode, in the unit of the fact that the document is open to public inspection at an appointed place and time: Provided that where a Consolidation Com mittee has been constituted for the unit each member of the said committee shall also be in dividually informed of the fact of publication. " unit is defined under Section 3 (11-A) of the Act as under: " (1 l-A) unit means a village or part there of, and where the Director of Consolidation so notifies by publication in the Official Gazette two or more village or part thereof, for which a single scheme of consolidation is to be frame " The issue hunches on interpellation of Section 5 (1) of the Act, as to whether the consequence of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) i. e. transferring a land without the permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, attract the provision of Section 45-A only where the publication has been made both in the official Gazette as well as in the unit? A literal interpretation of Section-5 (l) (c) (i) read with Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) if to be adhered the consequences of transferring a land after publication in the official Gazette are to follow and Section 45-A will be attracted. 12. A literal interpretation of Section-5 (l) (c) (i) read with Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) if to be adhered the consequences of transferring a land after publication in the official Gazette are to follow and Section 45-A will be attracted. 12. However, this literal interpretation is to result in a patent injustice as the village people are hardly supposed to know on which date the notification has been pub lished in the official Gazette and for making them aware of the fact that the village has been brought under consolidation scheme section 4 (2) (b) has to be read in a composite manner i. e. to show that the consequence of making a transfer void should flow only when the people of village came to know that the village has been brought under the consolidation scheme. A hyper technical literal interpretation of Section 5 (1) as demonstrated in this case is to result in patent injustice. 13. The injustice done to the petitioner is writ large, as he purchased the land before the consolidation scheme was published in the unit, as such, it is clear that it was fac tually impossible for him to know regarding the promulgation of the consolidation scheme in the village, as the publication in the official Gazette itself is brought to the notice of knowledgeable persons after months when the Gazette is released to the concerned authorities, some time gap is taken in the publication and availability of the Gazette to concerned authorities and people. L4. A pragmatic approach is required for construing section 5 (1) (c) (ii) read with Section 45-A in the context of Section 4 (2) (b) of the Act. 15. For interpreting the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to look into the legislative background as to how and why the said actions have been enacted. 16. U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act being U. P. Act No. 5 of 1954 was enacted by the State Legislature as a follow up of the land reforms instituted on the dawn of the independence by enacting U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The ob jects of the Act as proposed in the Bill are quoted herein: "object.-After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State. The ob jects of the Act as proposed in the Bill are quoted herein: "object.-After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State. Since the complicated and numerous types of tenures, both proprietary and cultivatory, the greatest stumbling block in the way of successful con solidation of holdings, have been abolished it is an opportune time to start this work. The advantages of having in compact blocks all the land farmed by one family need only be briefly mentioned. Boundary lines would be reduced in number and extent, saving land and diminishing boundary dis putes, larger fields would be possible and time saved in making trips to the fields. Further, if land were all in one piece, barriers, such as fences, hedges or ditches could be created to obtain privacy and prevent trespassing thieving and gleaning. The control of irrigation and drainage water would be easier; control of pests, insects and disease would also be less difficult. In August 1952, Government therefore, appointed a Com mittee under the Chairmanship of the Revenue Minister to draw a detailed Scheme for achieving consolidation of holdings in the State as early as possible and to suggest amendments to the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1939. The Com mittee after examining the reasons for failure of scheme under the Act of 1939 and the report of the sub-committee which studied the consolida tion of holdings scheme of Punjab (India) has recommended a new scheme for a co-ordinated plan for the general development of the villages on the pattern of the Punjab. A copy of the Committees report is enclosed. " 17. The Act has been amended as many as 16 times since its enactment almost every year some provision or the other was amended in the Act on the basis, that when ever some difficulty was realised in working of the Act, the Legislature intervened. The provisions of the Act in the aforesaid legis lative background should not be construed to give such a literal interpretation as to defeat the cause of justice. The avowed ob ject of the Act was to usher the land reforms for the benefit of the agriculturists of the country who were the backbone of the Inde pendent India. 18. The provisions of the Act in the aforesaid legis lative background should not be construed to give such a literal interpretation as to defeat the cause of justice. The avowed ob ject of the Act was to usher the land reforms for the benefit of the agriculturists of the country who were the backbone of the Inde pendent India. 18. Initially in the year 1954 when the Act was enacted, Section 4 (2) of the Act was in the present form. However, under Sec tion 5 of the Act the requirement was only that upon the publication under Section 4 the District or the local area, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolida tion operation from the date of such publi cation until publication of the notification under Section 52 of the Act. The effect of declaration of the notification was only after publication of the declaration in the local area. Section 5 of the Act was amended in 1956 and it was provided for the first time that the consequence of the enforcement of the consolidation proceedings are to flow on publication of the notification in the official Gazette. However, it is pertinent to mention that in 1956 there was no provision like the present one as Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) and no adverse consequences were to flow to any tenure holder on initiation of the consolidation proceedings except that the proceedings for correction of record cases pending in the other courts were stayed. 19. Section 5 (c) (ii) of the Act relevant for the present case has been brought on the statute boo-l- ∨ the first time in the year 1988. Section 5 (c) (ii) as enacted by U. P. Act No. 38of 1958 was in the following terms: "5. Effect of Declaration-Upon the publi cation of the notification tinder Section 4 in the official gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the declaration relates. (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act 1 of 1951), no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall- (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticul ture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. " (Emphasis added) 20. Aims and objects of U. P. Act 38 of 1958 does not give a clue for legislating a provision like Section 5 (c) (ii ). Aims and objects of the aforesaid Act are being reproduced below: "object.-The working of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, has revealed certain shortcomings. It is necessary to simplify the procedure with a view to cut out avoidable delays in consolidation operations. There is a public demand in certain areas for recognition of the consolidation which might have already been carried out by the tenure-holders voluntarily. Since the jurisdiction for bhumidhari suits is being transferred to revenue court, it has become necessary to do away with the provisions for arbitration which used to cause great delay. To inspire greater confidence in the people in the adjudication of rights of tenure-holders by con solidation authorities it is proposed to provide for a second appeal and a revision against orders passed by the Consolidation Officers. The present method of valuation of plots on the basis of soil classification and rent rates has not been found to be satisfactory. It is now proposed to provide for the %aluation of plots on the basis of productivity, availability of irrigation facilities and location, etc. , in consultation with the Consolidation Commit tee. Uptil now there was no provision for the management of land contributed for public pur pose. Exclusion of plots of special value having cultivation of Pan, Rose, Bela, Jasmine and Keora etc. , from consolidation operations has also been found necessary. With a view to provide for the above and to remove a few other minor defects, the Bill is being introduced. " (vide Statement of Objects and Reasons, published in the U. P. Gazette, Extraordinary, dated September 18, 1958/bhadra27,1880 Saka. , from consolidation operations has also been found necessary. With a view to provide for the above and to remove a few other minor defects, the Bill is being introduced. " (vide Statement of Objects and Reasons, published in the U. P. Gazette, Extraordinary, dated September 18, 1958/bhadra27,1880 Saka. ") However, the aforesaid provision came for consideration in various decisions of this Court. While interpreting the aforesaid provisions, the Court held that the provision was necessitated to prevent fur ther bifurcation of the holdings of the tenure-holders without knowledge and notice to the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion, as transfer of the part of the holding could have frustrated the purpose of the Act i. e. consolidation of holdings. There were some conflicting decisions on the issue, as to whether a permission of the Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation is also required when the entire holding is transferred. 21. A Full Bench of this Court consist ing of five Judges ultimately set at rest the controversy and held that no permission under Section 5 (c) is required for transfer ring the composite holding. The Full Bench ruled that the permission is only required when the part of the holding is sought to be transferred. (See Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj Jehwa and others, AIR 1974 All 106 ). 22. Earlier a Full Bench of three Honble Judges of this Court also took the same view in the matter of Smt. Asharfunisa Begum v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Camp at Hardoi and others AIR 1971 All, page 87. In this case the Full Bench categori cally held that restriction in regard to the transfer of whole holding would be unjus tified and unreasonable and, therefore, hit by Article 13 read with 19 (l) (f) of the Con stitution. The relevant portion of the judg ment is quoted below: "the second reason for the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench on the sub-clause to the effect that it prohibits without the permission of the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) transfer of a plot only of a holding and not the whole was that the object underlying the prohibition was fulfilled by prohibiting the transfer of a part only of a holding and did not call for prohibition of transfer of the holding as a whole. During consolidation opera tions complications will arise if only pan of a holding is transferred because then there will spring up two tenure-holders the original tenure-holder holding one part and the transferee hold ing the other part leading to complications. If however the whole holding is transferred then all that will be necessary in carrying out the consolida tion operations in progress will be to substitute the name of the transferee in place of that of the original tenure-holder. There is no doubt that if it can be shown that the transfer of whole holding will not create any complications and hindrance in the progress of the consolidation operations then the restriction in regard to transfer of the whole holding would be unjustified and unreasonable and therefore hit by Article 13 read with Article 19 (l) (f) of the Constitution. " **************** Accordingly if the whole holding is transferred that will not disturb the progress of the consolidation proceedings. The scheme of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is to treat a person as a Bhumidhar tenure-holder or Sirdar tenure-holder and not to have separate holdings under the same tenure. This is apparent in the instant case from the documents filed in which all plots of land held by the deceased Bashir Mohammad as Bhumidhar are grouped together and corresponding chak or chaks were allotted together in lieu of that land and similarly all plots of land held as Sirdar was grouped together for allotting a chak or chaks in lieu thereof as constituting one holding. We are accordingly of the view that it will be only part of a holding under one tenure if transferred by a tenure-holder during consolidation operations, that would create complications and the object of speedy consolidation would be thwarted, but if the whole holding is transferred that position will not arise. The Legislature must be presumed not to have intended to place more restrictions than were necessary or to have intended to make an invalid provision hit by Article 13 read with Article 19 (f) of the Constitution. The Legislature must be presumed not to have intended to place more restrictions than were necessary or to have intended to make an invalid provision hit by Article 13 read with Article 19 (f) of the Constitution. We are accordingly of the opinion that with the meaning of holding as clarified above, sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 restricts only the transfer of any part only of the holding of a tenure-holder and not the whole holding and in our view the Division Bench case referred to above was correctly decided on the basis of a similar interpretation placed on sub-cl. (1) of Section 5 of the Act. " 23. In Chidda Singh v. Arjun Singh, 1968 AWR 639 a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that conse quence of Section 5 (1) of the Act will now immediately on the publication of the notification in the official Gazette. The said decision has lost relevance after an amend ment having been made in Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) by Act No. 34 of 1974 and subsequent amendment by Act No. 30 of 1991. It may also be stated that in the said decision Learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any in justice having been done to him. In the aforesaid case the Court also held that the consolidation authorities did not give a finding that there was no publication in the unit. The facts of the aforesaid case are not relevant for the purposes of the decision of the present matter. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is also not attracted in the present controversy. 24. However, Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act was again amended prohibiting transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange of the hold ing or any part thereof without the permis sion of the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion as required under Section 5 (l) (c) of the Act. The object for bringing the aforesaid legislative change cannot be culled out from the object and reasons of the Act. The sec tion was substituted by Act No. 34 of 1974 in U. P. Land Law Amendment Act. The ob jects and reasons mainly deal with the problems of the Harijans in regard to the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The sec tion was substituted by Act No. 34 of 1974 in U. P. Land Law Amendment Act. The ob jects and reasons mainly deal with the problems of the Harijans in regard to the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. For amending the Consolidation of Holding Act, the objects and reasons are silent. For convenience the objects and reasons of Act No. 34 of 1974 are reproduced below: "the Act was passed with the following Ob jects and Reasons: "to remove the grievance of the Harijans that they are not allowed to exercise ownership rights over houses built by them on holdings recorded in the name of other persons, provision is being made in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to settle the house sites in such cases with the owners of the houses existing on March, 15, 1974. It has also been observed that the influential persons get the land held by the members of Scheduled Castes transferred in their names with the result that such members again become landless. With a view to safeguarding the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes, restriction is being placed on transfer by such members. In order to ensure that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes get at least 50 per cent of land available for allotment, Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is being amended with a view to preventing clandestine subletting. The provisions relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue and appointment of receivers are also being amended keeping in view the defects noticed in the enactments concerned. Certain amendments are proposed in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 so as to pro vide that the proceedings under the U. P. Imposi tion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, shall not be treated proceedings for declaration of rights under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Opportunity has also been taken to make some other verbal amendments of a formal na ture. " This provision was brought into force on 7-12-1974 on publication in the official Gazette. Soon the Legislature realised that the provision is not only unreasonable but is also causing great hardship and is also source of corruption. Opportunity has also been taken to make some other verbal amendments of a formal na ture. " This provision was brought into force on 7-12-1974 on publication in the official Gazette. Soon the Legislature realised that the provision is not only unreasonable but is also causing great hardship and is also source of corruption. In order to remove the practical and legal difficulties, experienced, in the implementation of the aforesaid provisions, S. 5 (c) (ii) of the Act has been deleted from the statute book by Act No. 30 of 1991. The relevant portion of the state ment of object and reasons of U. P. Act No. 30 of 1991 deleting the aforesaid obnoxious provision is being reproduced herein: "prefatory Note-Statement of Object and Reasons.-In order to remove the practical and legal difficulties experienced in the implementa tion of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and for extending the consolidation scheme in the hill areas it was considered necessary to amend the aforesaid Acts with a view to providing for (3) publication of notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation Act in the newspapers also having circulation in the consolidation area to ensure timely information regarding commence ment of consolidation operation to the tenure holders. (4) doing away with the provisions for taking permission of Settlement Officer, Consolidation for transfer of holding after the commencement of the consolidation scheme in order to prevent corruption and ensure quick disposal of cases relating to consolidation. " (Emphasis added) It may also be stated that the urgency of undoing the mischief brought by Act No. 34 of 1974 was so much that for enforcing the aforesaid provisions, the Government resorted issuing the Ordinance by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1991,which was later on sub stituted by Act. No. 30 of 1991. The state ment and object of U. P. Act No. 30 of 1991 makes it abundantly clear that putting com plete ban on transfer of holding of a tenure holder without the permission of Settle ment Officer Consolidation could not have been sustained in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Asharfimisa Begums case (supra ). The Legislature itself thought it proper to delete the aforesaid provision. The Legislature itself thought it proper to delete the aforesaid provision. Act No. 30 of 1991 is a remedial Act as has been brought on statute book to undo the mischief caused by the provisions of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii), as amended by U. P. Act No. 34 of 1974,what should be the im port of such an enactment, when the un- amended provision come up for considera tion before a Court. ? is an issue to be dealt with in this case? 25. In Principles of Statutory Inter pretation by Justice G. P. Singh, Vth Edition, page 313 for construing the remedial statute the following principle is laid down: "remedial statutes, though favoured by Courts are not for that reason retrospective to affect vested rights but since such statutes are to be construed liberally, the inhibition of the rule against retrospective construction may be applied with less insistence. " 26. In Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and others AIR 1986 page 842, the Apex Court while construing the provision of Sec tion 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act held that the provision will also apply to the awards of the Labour Tribunal already made and thus made the said provision effective retrospectively. For construing such a provision the Court held: "the Objects and Reasons give an insight into the background why this Section was intro duced. Though Objects and Reasons cannot be the ultimate guide in interpretation of statutes, it often times aids in finding out what really per suaded the legislature to enact a particular provision. The Objects and Reasons here clearly spell out that delay in the implementation of the awards is due to the contests by the employer which consequently cause hardship to the workmen. If this is the object, then would it be in keeping with this object and consistent with the progressive social philosophy of our laws to deny to the workmen the benefits of this Section simply because the award was passed, for example just a day before the Section came into force. In our view it would be not only defeating the rights of the workman but going against the spirit of the enact ment. In our view it would be not only defeating the rights of the workman but going against the spirit of the enact ment. A rigid interpretation of this Section as is attempted by the learned counsel for the respon dents would be rendering the workman worse off after the coming into force of this Section. This section has in effect only codified the rights of the workmen to get their wages which they could not get in time because of the long drawn out process caused by the methods employed by the Manage ment. This Section, in other words, gives a man date to the Courts to award wages if the conditions in the Section are satisfied. " In interpretation of statutes, Courts have steered clear of the rigid stand of looking into the words of the Section alone but have attempted to make the object of the enact ment effective and to render its benefits into the person in whose favour it is made. The legislators are entrusted with the task of only making laws. Interpretation has to come from the Courts. 27. In Sheo Nayak v. Saraswati, 1991 R. D. page 260 an issue arose that if permis sion for transferring three plots has been obtained by the tenure holder from the Set tlement Officer, Consolidation and there after the tenure holder only transfers one of the three plots can the provision of Section 5 (c) (ii) of the At be attracted to make the transfer void in view of Section 45-A of the Act. This Court while construing Section 5 (l) (c) (ii)of the Act held: "the duty of the Court is to expound the law as it is not as it ought to be. Words are not to be construed contrary to their meaning as excluding or embracing a particular case Sec Whiteliead v. Games Scott Ltd. (1949) 1 KB 353 ; Sutlers v. Briggs (1922) 1 ACL It is general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature intended something which it omitted to express: "it is a strong thing to read into Act of Parliament words which are not there and in the absence of clear necessity it is wrong thing to do. " We are not entitled to read words into Act of Parliament unless clear reason is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. See Thomson v. Gold S. Co. (1910) AC 409 Vickers, Sam & Maxim Ltd. v. Evens (1910) AC 444. A VERBIS LEGIS NON EST RECEDEN DUM, a latin maxim connotes that from the words of law there must be no departure. The provisions of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act have to be interpreted according to the words employed to convey the meaning. The provision has to be considered in the context in which it is used. This provision must bear textual and contex tual interpretation. It must not be in its isolation. Further meaning ought to be assigned so as to promote the public good. " 28. In Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC page 1074 while construing the provisions of S. 4 (1) of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, the Court held it to be mandatory that the publication is also to be made in the village as provided in the Act. 29. In Principles of Statutory Inter pretation following guidelines have been laid down for supplying the words to the statute. 30. Justice G. P. Singh in his book Prin ciples of Statutory Interpretation, (supra) has laid down following principles: "application of the mischief rule or pur posive construction may also enable reading of words by implication when there is no doubt about the purpose which the Parliament intended to achieve. But before any words are read to repair an omission in the Act; it should be possible to state with certainty that these words would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by Parliament had their attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill into law. " 31. In Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, AIR 1988 SC page-1060, the aforesaid principle has been reiterated: "it is no doubt true that the Court while construing a provision should not easily read into its words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the Court should construe it in a harmoneous way to make in meaningful. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1940) 2 All ER 155 at P. 164, Lord Denning L. J. said: "when a defect appears, a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament. . . . and then he must supplement the written word so as to give force and life to the intention of the legisla ture. . . ^ Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they should have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases. " 32. 1n N. K. Jain v. S. K. Shah, AIR 1991 SC page 1289 the aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court. 33. 1n the present case if S. 5 (1) in regard to its sub- section (c) (ii) is to be saved from the vice of unreasonableness as laid down in Asharfttnisa Begums case (supra) by Full Bench of this Court the way out is to interpret the said section to mean that only on publication in the unit the consequence u/s. 5 (l) (c) (ii) will flow. It is settled propo sition of law that if a provision can be saved by interpreting it in the manner that it does not suffer from vice of unconstitutionality, the said interpretation should be preferred. In the light of the facts of this case it may not be necessary to hold that the provision of S. 5 (l) (c) (ii) as brought on the statute book by Act No. 34 of 1974 was unreasonable or to hold that the said provision stands retrospectively deleted by Act No. 30 of 1991,if a justice oriented interpretation is provided to S. 5 (l) (c) (ii ). If the consequen ces of S. 5 (l) (c) (ii) are attracted only on complete publication as contemplated by S. 4 (2) the issue of considering vires of the aforesaid provisions will not arise. 34. If the consequen ces of S. 5 (l) (c) (ii) are attracted only on complete publication as contemplated by S. 4 (2) the issue of considering vires of the aforesaid provisions will not arise. 34. On analysing the aforesaid provision, I am of the view that the words on publication in the official Gazette under S. 4 (2) in S. 5 (1) should be read to mean com plete publication under Section 4 (2) of the Act i. e. publication in the official Gazette as well as in the unit. The sale-deed in the present case in favour of the petitioner was executed in regard to the holding, admitted ly before the date of the publication of the Consolidation scheme in the unit, as such, the consequences of S. 5 (1) (c) (ii) are not attracted in the light I have interpreted S. 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act aforesaid. 35. A reading of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) in the context of Section 4 (2) of the Act it is necessary for harmoneous construction and for proper implementation of Section 5 that the consequences under Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) should follow only when the publication regarding consolidation operation has also been made in the unit as required under Section 4 (2) (b) and from the aforesaid aspect it is necessary that under Section 5 (1) after the words official gazette the words in each unit of the said area should be read. 36. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the view that the sale-deed executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner was not hit by the provisions of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) read with Section 45-A of the Act. All the three con solidation courts have committed error of law in holding to the contrary. 37. Accordingly, I issue a writ of certiorari and quash the orders of Consolida tion Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolida tion and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3-8-1981, 23-9-1982 and 21-8- 1986,respectively and issue a direction that the mutation be made in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner on 16-7-79. The sale-deed executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the respon dents No. 5 to 7 during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings is non-opera tive, as the respondent No. 4 had no right to execute a sale-deed in favour of the respon dents No. 5 to 7 after transferring the entire rights in favour of the petitioners. The petitioner rights cannot be affected in any manner by the aforesaid sale-deed. 38. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .