JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—These are 13 connected writ petitions raising common question of law and facts and are directed against common judgment and order dated 2.9.1994 passed by Board of Revenue deciding 13 Second Appeals. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Lalji Sinha assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Om appearing for respondent No. 7. 3. The petitioner a registered society purchased certain land on various dates in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 from various tenure holders through different registered sale deeds. In December 1976, respondent No. 4 filed 13 suits under Section 163 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short the ‘Act) on the ground that petitioner society has acquired more than 12.50 acres of land by means of various sale deeds without permission of the State Government and thus, was liable to be ejected from the surplus land and the same was liable to be vested in the State. All the suits were consolidated. On the basis of pleadings between the parties Additional Collector 1st Class framed various issues. One of the issue was whether the proceedings are barred by time. Respondent No. 3 finding that the proceedings were barred by time vide common order dated 29.5.1979 dismissed all the 13 cases. Respondent No. 4 went up in appeals. Appellate Court vide order dated 26.5.1981 dismissed all the appeals. Appellate order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing 13 second appeals. Board of Revenue vide order dated 2.9.1994 allowed the same holding that sale deeds were void under Section 166 of the Act and the surplus land was liable to be vested in the State under Section 167. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that law as it stood at the time of execution of sale deeds would apply to the case and the Board of Revenue without considering the provisions of Section 163 as it then stood has wrongly and illegally allowed the second appeals holding that the suit would not be barred by limitation and wrongly relying upon Section 167 has held the transfers to be void. 5. 5. In reply, it has been submitted that since there is a ceiling on holding more than 12.50 acres of land in the State of Uttar Pradesh and consequently any transfer made in violation of the said provision should be void in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 166 and it is immaterial whether the sale deed was executed before deletion of Section 163 from the statute or thereafter. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Section 163 relevant for the purpose of the case as it stood originally reads as under : “163. Transfer in contravention of this Act.—Where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of the provisions of Section 154 or 157-A, the transferee and every person who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or part of the holding shall, notwithstanding anything in any law, be liable to ejectment from such holding or part on the suit of the Gaon Sabha, which shall thereupon become vacant land; but nothing in this section will prejudice the right of the transferor to realise the whole or portion of the price remaining unpaid or the right of any other person other than the transferee to proceed against such holding or land in enforcement of any claim thereto. (2) .................. (3) ............. Section 154 as it stood at the relevant time reads under : “154. No bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person (other than institution established for a charitable purpose) where such person shall, as a result of the sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held by himself or together with his family will, in the aggregate, exceed 12.50 acres in Uttar Pradesh. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section a family shall include the transferee himself, his wife or husband, as the case may be, and his minor children." 8. Section 154 as it then stood in the statute only placed restriction on the transfers by a bhumidhar. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section a family shall include the transferee himself, his wife or husband, as the case may be, and his minor children." 8. Section 154 as it then stood in the statute only placed restriction on the transfers by a bhumidhar. The consequences of any transfer in breach of the restriction imposed was not specified in the said section rather it was contained in Section 163 quoted above which provided that whereever a transfer is made in contravention of the provisions of Section 154, the transferee shall be liable to be ejectment on the suit at the instance of Gaon Sabha to the extent of contravention that is to say to the extent of transfer made in excess of the prescribed limit. 9. By an amendment in Section 163 of the Act made by U.P. Act XXXV of 1976 it was provided for the first time that a transfer by Bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 could be declared void by an Assistant Collector, Ist Class either suo motu or on the application by any person, after an enquiry. The consequences were contained in sub-section (2) which mainly provided that subject matter of transfer, with effect from the date of order made under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be vested in State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 163 of the Act was later on deleted from the Statute vide U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act (Act No. 20 of 1982) with effect from 3.6.1981 and a new Section 166 was introduced prescribing every transfer made in contravention of provisions of the Act to be automatically void and the consequences were contained in Section 167 amended vide same amending Act with effect from 3.6.1981 namely land shall be deemed to have been vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 10. 10. From a reading of provisions of Section 154, Section 163, Section 166 and Section 167 together before and after the amendment clearly demonstrate that prior to amendment made under Section 163 vide amending Act XXXV of 1976 which came into force on 15.6.1976, any transfer made by a bhumidhar in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under Section 154 would entail ejectment of the transferee at the instance of Gaon Sabha and the ejectment from the excess land transferred in contravention of the prescribed limit in Section 154 could have been directed only in a suit for ejectment filed by Gaon Sabha. The view taken by me finds support from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kripashankar v. Director of Consolidation and others, 1979 RD 80, wherein it has been held that under unamended Section 163 any transfer by a bhumidhar made in contravention of Section 154 is not void but voidable only at the instance of Gaon Sabha only to the extent of contravention that is to say only to the extent of excess transfer over and above the prescribed limit. The limitation for filing such a suit as provided in Appendix III was six years. In case where the Gaon Sabha failed to bring a suit within the prescribed period its claim would stand barred by limitation. 11. From the findings of fact recorded by trial Court as well as lower appellate Court, it is clear that all the suits filed by respondent No. 4 in December 1976 with regard to sale deeds executed in favour of petitioner in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 were apparently filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of six years and thus were rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. 12. The Board of Revenue illegally failed to consider that in accordance with law prevailing at the time of execution of sale deeds, transfer made in excess of ceiling limit was not void but voidable at the instance of Gaon Sabha. Without considering that offending sale will attract the law as it stood on the date of sale, wrongly applying the amended provisions the Board of Revenue declared the sale deed to be void. 13. Without considering that offending sale will attract the law as it stood on the date of sale, wrongly applying the amended provisions the Board of Revenue declared the sale deed to be void. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion all the suits filed by respondent No. 4 were rightly dismissed by the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court as barred by limitation and the Board of Revenue fell in error in allowing the second appeals. Thus, all the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Common judgment and order dated 2.9.1994 passed by Board of Revenue deciding all the 13 second appeals stands quashed. 14. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ————