S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. The petitioners who were the recorded Bhumidhars of plot No. 4700 and 4701 obtained permission for transferring an area of 1. 5 Bighas out of plot Nos. 4700 and 4701 which permission con templated under Section 5 of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act was granted by the competent authority on 5-10-77. The permission which had been applied for was in respect of the entire area of plots No. 4700 and 4701/7 but only a part of the said area was transferred. The competent authority, while granting the permission had provided that the transfer should be effected within 30 days. The sale-deed was thereafter executed on 23-2-1978 that is to say after the expiry of 30 days time provided for in the order dated 5-10-1977. However, the petitioners moved another application for permission to transfer which was granted on 2-3-1978. In this order also the permission of transfer was to remain opera tive for 30 days, indicating that the time for sale was being extended. 2. The application seeking mutation on the basis or the sale-deed dated 23-2-1978, registered on 10-3- 1978 was thereafter moved by the transferees Shiv Shankar, and Satya Prakash. The said ap plication which was moved u/s. 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 18-4-1979 holding that the sale-deed had been ex ecuted at a point of time when the permis sion to sell contemplated u/s. 5 (c) (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not in existence. It was further observed that the permission sought for was for the transferor the entire plot Nos. 4700 and 4701 but out of 1 Bigha 10 Biswas, an area of 1 Bigha and 5 Biswas only had been transferred. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer, the transferees preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 24- 5-1980 indicating that although the per mission to transfer had been granted on 5-10-1977 yet the sale deed in question was executed at a point of time when the said permission had ceased to be operative. It was further indicated that the entire arearea of plots had not been transferred and it was not clear as to which portion of which plot out of two plots had been left out. It was further indicated that the entire arearea of plots had not been transferred and it was not clear as to which portion of which plot out of two plots had been left out. The Settlement Officer Consolidation was of the view that when the permission had been sought for the transfer of the entire area of the plots, the transfer in respect of only part of the same could not be recognised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 4. One of the transferees viz. Satya Prakash filed a revision challenging the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolida tion passed in appeal but the said revision was dismissed as not pressed on 23-1- 1981. 5. Both the transferees however, moved a fresh application under Section 12 of the P. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide the order dated 21-8- 1980. In this order it has been noticed that on 19-12-1977, an area of 4 Biswas, 14 Biswansis had been acquired in the proceed ings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 out of plots in respect whereof permis sion for transfer has been sought for. 6. Subsequently however, vide the order dated 22-3-1991, the Competent Authority held that the petitioner did not possess any such vacant land which could be held to be surplus. 7. The Consolidation Officer proceed ing on the basis that a valid transfer had been made allowed the recording of the names of the transferees in the revenue record after expunging the names of the transferors. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 21- 8-1980 was given effect to in the revenue record. 8. Thereafter the said order was chal lenged by means of a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, by the transferors which was filed on 28-2-1986. The transferors sought for the condonation of delay in filing the revision. The revisional Court found that the trans ferors had the knowledge of the order dated 21-8-1980 during the period 27-4-1985 to 21-8-1985 and the revision had been filed without furnishing any explanation for the period elapsing between 28-4-1985 to 28-2- 1986. The transferors sought for the condonation of delay in filing the revision. The revisional Court found that the trans ferors had the knowledge of the order dated 21-8-1980 during the period 27-4-1985 to 21-8-1985 and the revision had been filed without furnishing any explanation for the period elapsing between 28-4-1985 to 28-2- 1986. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion refused to condone the delay in filing the revision holding that the transferors had not made out any sufficient cause for the same and were not entitled to the benefits under the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion further held that the village where the plots in dispute stood situated was de-notified on 30-8-1980 on which date the notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was publish ed. According to the revising authority, the revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was there fore, not entertainable. The Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation also observed that the transferors had not challenged the order dated 21-8-1980 in appeal although, a statutory remedy of appeal stood provided against the said order under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order dated 17-8-1987, dismissing the revision. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the transferor Smt. Pooran Devi and Smt. Har Bheji Devi have filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17010 of 1987 praying the quashing of the order dated 21-8-80 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 17-8-87 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It may be noticed that subsequent to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation the transferors filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolida tion), the delay in filing where is was sought to be condoned. This appeal was, however, dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) on 29-4-89 noticing that Smt. Harbheii Devi was present in Court and had prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The true copy of the memo of appeal filed by Harbheii and the order passed by the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) dated 29-4-89 have been brought on record. This appeal was, however, dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) on 29-4-89 noticing that Smt. Harbheii Devi was present in Court and had prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The true copy of the memo of appeal filed by Harbheii and the order passed by the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) dated 29-4-89 have been brought on record. From the record it also appears that on 4-4-92, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Etmadpur on an ap plication filed by Lalta Prasad in the capacity of the Mukhtar-e-am of Smt. Harbheji Devi and Smt. Pooran Devi, the present petitioners, which application was filed under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, had directed that the names of the petitioners be recorded over the land in dispute as Bhumidhars holding that the order dated 21-8-80 and 17-8-87 were liable to be ignored. The operation of this order was later on stayed vide the order dated 4-8-92 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) vide his order dated 31-3-93 recommended to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 4-8-92 making the refer ence, during the pendency of the applica tion seeking recall of the order dated 4-4-92. 11. In the meanwhile during the pen dency of the restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 4-4-92 the trans ferees filed a suit being suit No, 650/92 against Smt. Pooran Devi, Smt. Harbheji Devi and Sri Lalta Prasad Srivastava as well as the Cooperative Housing Society praying for a decree of permanent prohibition in junction restraining these defendants from dealing with the land in suit either by trans ferring the same inter-se or to any other persons or to forcibly occupy the same or interfere with the plaintiffs possession therein in any manner whatsoever. 12. 12. The plaintiffs claimed to be the Bhumidhars of the land in dispute on the strength of sale deed executed by Smt. Harbheii Devi and Smt. Pooran Devi and asserted that Lalta Prasad Srivastava, the defendant No. 3 who posed himself to be an Advocate but appeared to be a Member of the Land Grab Squad well versed in the art of befooling illiterate persons and obtaining from them documents so as to either wrong fully usurp their property or start litigation in respect thereof succeeded in obtaining a power of attorney executed from these ladies in his favour on 22-3-85 in respect of the land in dispute inspite of knowing fully well the fact that the ladies had no right, title or interest in the aforesaid land. The plain tiffs also alleged that the two ladies had executed a deed of cancellation of the power of attorney executed in favour of Lalta Prasad Srivastava and had got it registered on 8-8-85 and publication in this regard had also been made in the local newspapers on 28-8-85. It was also alleged that the defen dant No. 3 alleging himself to be the power of attorney holder of the defendants No, 1 and 2 had executed certain agreements in favour of the defendant No. 4 and on the basis of these agreements the Defendant No. 4 has been frequently coming to the plaintiff and threatening them to settle the dispute otherwise the plaintiff will be for cibly dispossessed. 13. The aforesaid suit was filed on 20-8-92. On the same date on an application seeking temporary injunction in the terms indicated herein above, the trial court after issuing notice requiring the defendant to file objection, passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the property in dispute restraining them from changing its character or transferring the same in the meanwhile. On 4-1-93 the interim order dt. 20-8-92 was made absolute observing that none had appeared on behalf of the defendants to oppose the application and the interim injunction, was directed to continue till the disposal of the suit. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the ex pane order dated 20-8-92 Sri Lalta Prasad, the defendant No. 3 alongwith one other defen dant had filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 236 of 1992. This appeal was dismissed on 6-9-93. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the ex pane order dated 20-8-92 Sri Lalta Prasad, the defendant No. 3 alongwith one other defen dant had filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 236 of 1992. This appeal was dismissed on 6-9-93. It may be noticed that it was during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal that the interim order dt. 20-8-92 had been confirmed by the trial court on 4-1-93 as indicated herein above. 15. The trial court framed as many as eleven issues on 11-1-93 in the suit which is still pending. 16. Smt. Harbheji one of the trans ferors and Sri Lalta Prasad Srivastava, the alleged holder of power to attorney from the two transferors felt aggrieved by the order dated 6-4-93 dismissing the appeal against the exparte order of temporary injunction passed by the trail court on 20-8-92 and have filed Writ Petition No. 33514 of 1993 seek ing the quashing of the orders dated 20-8- 92 and 6-4-93. The petitioner has also prayed for relief in regard to a criminal case, which is claimed to be pending. 17. Considering the nature of the con troversy raised in these writ petitions, on the request of the learned counsel for the par ties both the these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 18. It is not in dispute that the land in question is situate within the municipal limit of Agra and treating it as a land falling within the purview of the U. P. Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, proceedings had been initiated wherein ultimately it was found that no portion of the land in dispute was liable to be held as surplus vacant land. The only ground on which the petitioners of writ Petition No. 33514/1993 including the land holders of the plots in dispute as recorded prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs of O. S. No. 650 of 1992 base their claim is that in view of the prohibition contained in Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which according to the aforesaid petitioners was clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as is evident from the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-4-79 which stood affirmed in ap peal and which were the orders passed in proceedings under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, sale in ques tion had to be treated as nullity and could not be recognised or implemented under the subsequent orders passed by the Con solidation Officer as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation at a subsequent stage. 19. The relevant portion of Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is to the following effect, namely,- "5. Effect of notification under Section 4 (2)-- (1) Upon the publication of the notifica tion (under sub- section (2) of 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 publica tion 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, namely- (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 no tenure-holder, except with the per mission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Con solidation, previously obtained shall- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift of exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area: Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift of exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area: Provided. . . . . . . . . . A perusal of the aforesaid provision indi cates that subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bringing an area within the consolidation operations transfer of any part of the holding lying within the consolidation area byway of sale gifts or exchange cannot be effected without the permis sion in writing of the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) which has been obtained prior to the transfer. 20. It is, therefore, obvious that it is only in a situation where a part of the holding is required to be transferred that the previous permission in writing of the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) is to be ob tained which is the statutory mandate. In case the requisite prior permission for transferring a part of the holding is not , obtained or is refused, the transfer of any / part of the holding in that event is to be treated as invalid and not liable to be recog nised. 21. The term holding has been defined in Section 3 (4-C) of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act. holding as con templated under the provisions of the said Act means a parcel or parcels of land held under the tenure by a tenure holder single or jointly with other tenure-holders. It is, therefore, obvious that the permission referred to in Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Con solidation of Holdings Act is in regard to the transfer of a part of parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure- holder " singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. The permission Contemplated under the provisions indicated herein above need not be in respect of any specific plot or plots which constitute part of the parcel or par cels offend as envisaged under Section 3 (4-C) of the Act. A tenure-holder is required to obtain the prior permission in case he wants to transfer any part of the parcel or parcels of land held by him under one tenure singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. 22. A tenure-holder is required to obtain the prior permission in case he wants to transfer any part of the parcel or parcels of land held by him under one tenure singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. 22. Once the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) grants the permission to transfer a part of the parcel or parcels of land held by a tenure-holder under one tenure whether singly or jointly with any other person in that event the requirement of the law stands satisfied and the transferor become free to transfer any part of any parcel or parcels of land held by him under one tenure. 23. Even the consequence of a transfer in violation of Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stand provided u/s. 45 (a) of the Act which stipu lates that a transfer made in contravention of-the provisions of Section 5 (c) (ii) shall not be valid or recognised, anything con tained in any other law for the time being in force to the contrary notwithstanding. 24. The aforesaid provision does not indicate that the transfer in the absence of the requisite prior permission will be void ab initio but only provides that for the pur poses of the Act such transfer will not be treated to be valid or recognised. In the aforesaid connection it may be noticed at this stage that the legislature is not short of words and in case the intention had been to treat the transfer of any part of the holding as defined under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to be legally inoperative or non-est there could be no difficulty in using the expression Void in place of the expression "invalid. " 25. The provisions contained in Sec tions 163,166,168-A (2) and 189 (aa) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it has been specifically provided that a transfer in contravention of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Act would be void. In fact while providing for the consequence of such void transfers in the provision contained in Section 189 of the if. ?. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act it has been clearly indicated that the interest of the tenure-holder gets extinguished. The language and expression used in Section 45-A of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act to do not indicate any such intention. 26. ?. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act it has been clearly indicated that the interest of the tenure-holder gets extinguished. The language and expression used in Section 45-A of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act to do not indicate any such intention. 26. This Court in its decision in the case of Banwari Lal v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1974 decided on 6-8-81) had clarified that a permission granted for transferring the whole would ensure for making transfer of a part thereof unless ex pressly forbidden to do so under law, for, by any such condition indicated in the order itself providing that the entire holding can be transferred and not the part only. In the present case no such condition has been shown to exist. In the circumstances, there fore, in a case where permission to sell and entire share in the holding consisting of several plots or chak under one tenure has been granted, the prohibition in making transfer stands removed and on any one or more plots or chak or part of the holding can be transferred validly. The transfer of a part of holding after permission to transfer the whole cannot be said to defeat the purposes of the Act nor can it be deemed to in validate the sale. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid decision in the case of Banwari Lal (supra ). 27. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The terms such as void, Voidable and ""invalid" and illegal and ultra-vires are often used inter-changeably though these expressions carry different sense. A thing thought void in the strict sense of the word is a mere nullity and may be ignored. Similar is the position where it is without jurisdiction and in that event it has to be treated as non-est. Even the breach of a mandatory provision does not necessarily render an action void though it would make it illegal. It all depends on the nature of the prereq uisite condition which may either relate to the exercise of the action/authority or to the manner in which it is to be exercised. If it relates to the manner in which the authority is to be exercised the non-compliance would only make the action voidable and unless it is set aside it would remain operative. If it relates to the manner in which the authority is to be exercised the non-compliance would only make the action voidable and unless it is set aside it would remain operative. In a case where Act is done without compliance of the statutory requirements it may render it legally ineffective in which case the action may be held to be void. 28. A Full Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and others reported in A. I. R. 1974 Allahabad 106 had clarified that the ban envisaged under clause (ii) of Section 5 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was intended to prevent fragmentation of holdings and as such it was placed only on a transfer of a part of the holding. There could be no objection to the transfer of the holding as a whole because it would not involve fragmentation but would involve only a change in ownership. The Full Bench observed that the scheme under lying the Act was to consolidate agricultural holdings and to prevent their further frag mentation for which the said provision and been made. It is also observed that it was not the intention to restrict the right of an owner to deal with his property by way of sale, exchange or transfer except to the ex tent that the necessary to carry out the ob jects of the Act. The Full Bench further observed that the expression any holding occurring in clause (ii) of S. 5 (1) (c) of the act does not include the whole holding so that it is not necessary to obtain the permis sion of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for the transfer of the holding as a whole. 29. It seems to me that the invalidity of a transfer resulting in the absence of the prior permission as envisaged under Sec tion 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not per se render the transaction void or legally ineffective. The invalidity is curable.-Considering the policy and the object behind the aforesaid provisions, this invalidity can be cured before the finalisation of the provisional consolidation scheme. The invalidity is curable.-Considering the policy and the object behind the aforesaid provisions, this invalidity can be cured before the finalisation of the provisional consolidation scheme. It is obvious that to begin with the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) had granted the permission which was to remain effective for thirty days but considering that the sale had been ex ecuted after the period provided for in the order passed in the year 1977, the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) again granted the permission in March 1978 extending the duration of the earlier permission. The in validity if any, therefore, stood cured as it is no bodys case that the provisional con solidation scheme had attained finality by the date of permission which had been granted for the second time. 30. In the aforesaid view of the matter the transfer in question could not be held to be void or non-est being legally ineffectual or without any authority of law. 31. In view of the matter the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1980 shows that it has been passed after publication of the required notice. No effort had been made to get that order set aside on the ground of the same being exparte. It is the latter decision which is to be taken as having attained finality. The order sought to be relied upon by the petitioner passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1977 which was affirmed by the Settlement Of ficer (Consolidation) cannot be held to be in accordance with law. 32. Any order setting aside the later order of the year 1980 passed by the Con solidation Officer will only result in the revival of a manifestly illegal order. In the proceeding under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India such a course of action has to be avoided. 33. As has already been noticed herein above the exparte interim order of injunc tion granted by the trial court had been confirmed on 4-1-93. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant of that suit ever applied for recall of the said order. The order confirming the exparte interim order had to be treated as having been passed under Order XXXIX, Rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant of that suit ever applied for recall of the said order. The order confirming the exparte interim order had to be treated as having been passed under Order XXXIX, Rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. With the confirmation of the order directing that the said interim order shall continue to remain in operation during the pendency of the suit, the appeal filed by the defendant against the exparte interim order was rendered infructuous and there was no necessity for going into the merits of the appeal in view of the finality of interim order. 34. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as brought on record, I am clearly of the opinion that the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1987 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as no justifiable ground has been made out for the interven tion of equity while exercising the extra-or dinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 35. I am further of the clear opinion that in the facts and circumstances as noticed hereinabove no justifiable ground has been, made out for any interference in the order of temporary injunction which has been made absolute by the trial court in Original Suit No. 650 of 1992. 36. The writ petition No. 33514 of 1993, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby, dismissed. 37. Considering the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition No. 33514193 dismissed. .