JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bushan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1-11-2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the order of the Additional Collector dated 15-5-2006. 3. The petitioner purchased plot No. 1018m area 0.506 hectare from one Tejpal Singh by registered sale deed dated 31-10-2003. The petitioner filed an application for mutation of mutating her name. Tejpal Singh did not file any objection but his son Raj Singh filed objection on 3-12-2003. On the basis of the aforesaid objection, Tehsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 15-3-2004 stating therein to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 166 and 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 20-3-2004 by the Additional Collector to the petitioner under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with the allegation that petitioner had purchased lease land and he may show cause why the land be not vested in the State. The petitioner filed reply to the objection on 6-10-2005 to the notice issued to him. The Additional Collector vide order dated 15-5-2006 held that the plot No. 1018m was a lease land which was Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights and there was no right with the vendor to transfer the land. It was held that the transfer was against the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the land is to be vested in the State. The petitioner filed revision before the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 1-11-2007. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the land was a lease land but lease having been executed in favour of Tejpal Singh on 8-6-1994, after expiry of 10 years, Tejpal Singh became the bhumidar with transferable right under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, hence, by virtue of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner will acquire interest and the sale could not be declared as void. He has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1974 R.D. 92, Desh Raj and others v. Lal Sahai Singh and others. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has submitted a reply to the notice but the order was passed with the observation that no notice was given. 6. He has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1974 R.D. 92, Desh Raj and others v. Lal Sahai Singh and others. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has submitted a reply to the notice but the order was passed with the observation that no notice was given. 6. The first submission of the petitioner is based on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The date of lease is dated 8th June, 1994. According to the petitioner’s case under Section 131-B, the vendor could have become bhumidhar with transferable rights after expiry of 10 years and by virtue of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, since the petitioner professed sale of bhumidhar, land rights of petitioner cannot be defeated. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Sections 166 and 167 (1) (a) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which is as under : “166. Transfer made in contravention of this Chapter to be void.—Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be void. 167. Consequences of void transfers.—(1) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely— (a) the subject-matter of transfer shall, with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances;” 7. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate or any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is quoted below : “43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.—Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate or any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in this Section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.” 8. Nothing in this Section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.” 8. In the present case, it has to be thus seen as to whether by virtue of Section 131-B, petitioner’s vendor acquired any interest. By virtue of Section 167 (1)(a) the subject matter of the transfer shall, with effect from the date of transfer be deemed to have vested in the State Government. Thus, the transfer of land which was bhumdhari with no transferable right being effected on 31-10-2003, from the date of the transfer the land shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government forfeiting the rights of vendor of the land who was a lessee on 31-10-2003 itself by deeming provision of Section 167 land shall be treated to be vested in the State Government, hence there was no right of the vendor subsisting on the basis of which he can claim acquisition of bhumidhari right with transferable right under Section 131-B of the Act after exiry of ten years Section 131-B shall come into play where the right of a lessee a bhumidhari with non-transferable rights continues. Thus, no interest was acquired in the present case by the vendor of the petitioner by virtue of Section 131-B, so that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could be pressed into service. The Division Bench judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present case does not help the petitioner and is also distinguishable. The Division Bench itself in paragraph 5 has observed that : “5......... This decision is clearly distinguishable from the present one because here the sale was not of Sirdari rights and there is nothing to show that the transferee knew that the transferors were only Sirdars.” 9. The Division Bench in the said judgment has laid down the applicability of Section 43, cannot be ruled out with regard to transfer of Sirdari right, there cannot be any dispute with the said preposition that a person with non-transferable right, if acquire certain rights subsequently, Section 43 may come into play but the present case is a case where Section 167 (1)(a) is applicable which contains a deeming clause declaring the subject matter of the sale to vest in the State from the date of transfer. Thus, in the present case, Section 43 is not applicable because of the fact that there was no right subsisting in the lessee to acquire any interest subsequently. In the case before Division Bench the vendor sold sirdari plots professing themselves to be bhumidhar. In the present case the vendee has not denied that the land purchased was a lease land. It was further admitted by the petitioner in his reply to notice that lease was granted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Further, in the case before Division Bench interest was acquired by vendor by obtaining bhumidhari sanad dated 26-9-1959 as noted in paragraph four of the judgment. In the present case there is no pleading or material that bhumidhari rights were granted to vendor subsequently. The Division Bench judgment, thus, does not help the petitioner in the present case. There is one more aspect which needs to be considered. The lease granted under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act giving non-transferable right is for particular object and purpose, the rights of lease are granted to the eligible person under Section 195-197 of the Act 1950 to carry out the object and purpose of the Act. The restriction of transfer on the lease land is for a purpose. A person who has been granted lease of the land is not supposed to sell the land by taking consideration that is why the restriction of sale has been provided on the such leases land. The sale in question having been taken place within ten years of the grant of lease, the same is clearly covered by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the sale was clearly void. Thus, the first submission of the petitioner on the basis of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act does not help the petitioner in the present case. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the notice was given under Section 168-A for fragmentation which was replied by the petitioner, whereas the Additional Collector has observed that no reply was given. The submission of the petitioner that notice was under Section 168A of the Act, cannot be accepted. The notice which has been filed as Annexure-3 mentions on the top of it Section 166/167, substance of notice also indicate that allegation against the petitioner was that he has purchased the lease land. The submission of the petitioner that notice was under Section 168A of the Act, cannot be accepted. The notice which has been filed as Annexure-3 mentions on the top of it Section 166/167, substance of notice also indicate that allegation against the petitioner was that he has purchased the lease land. Mention of Section 168-A in the notice may be an error and no benefit can be taken of such an error by the petitioner. In the reply, the petitioner has mentioned about the factum of his purchase on 31-10-2003 and also stated that Tejpal Singh belonging to backward category, no permission was required. In paragraph 9, it was also stated that lessee has became bhumidhar under Section 131-B, thus, the reply of the petitioner can be said to be on both count. He has attacked the notice given under Section 168-A as well as claimed rights from the lessee and also claimed that lessee has became bhumidhar. Although the Additional Collector has observed that notice was not replied but it is not necessary to enter into the above issue. In view of the fact that petitioner’s reply on the merits, have been considered in this writ petition and the reply was given by the petitioner on the basis of Section 131-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, this Court having considered the contention on merits of the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served to ask the Court below to again examine the matter and take a fresh decision. The sale dated 31-10-2003 was clearly void and hit by Section 166/167, no error can be found in the order passed by the Courts below. It is, however, open for the petitioner to institute a proceeding in a Competent Civil Court for refund of the consideration which was paid by the petitioner to his vendor. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. ————