Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 585 (ALL)

RAM SWAROOP v. D. D. C.

2018-03-12

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—The present petition is directed against the orders dated 7.11.2016 and 13.11.2017 passed by the Consolidation Authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for according benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It appears that pursuant to the proceeding under Section 157-AA read with Section 167 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the suit No. 8/2006-07 was registered against the petitioner in whose favour, registered sale-deed dated 29.10.2001 was executed by the recorded Bhumidhar namely Smt. Tikana as no prior permission was taken from the Assistant Collector before execution of the said sale-deed. 2. Vide order dated 13.12.2007, the Collector held that the sale transaction vide sale-deed dated 29.10.2001 was hit by Section 157-AA of the Act and the said transaction being void under Section 166 of the Act, the consequence of Section 167 will follow. Resultantly, the land in question stood vest in the State Government under Section 167 of the Act. It was, accordingly, declared as the State land and possession was directed to be transferred to the Gram Sabha for the maintenance thereof. This order was challenged in revision which was dismissed on 31.7.2009. 3. Before the revisionial Court, a prayer was made by the petitioner that he being the landless agricultural labourer in possession of the Gram Sabha land was entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. The revisional Court refused to entertain the said plea with the finding that the area and field of operation of Section 167 and Section 122-B (4-F) are different. In a proceedings under Section 167, the rights of the tenure holder extinguishe and the land vests in the State on account of violation of provisions of Section 157 (AA), the purchaser cannot be given benefit of Section 122-B (4-F). Moreover, the revisionist/purchaser did not produce any evidence regarding the agricultural holding in his possession being less than 3.18 acre. The revision was, accordingly, dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2009. 4. During the course of consolidation, it appears that the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer seeking benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act and consequent settlement of the disputed land in his favour. The said objection was rejected on 7.11.2016. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed on 13.11.2017. 5. The said objection was rejected on 7.11.2016. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed on 13.11.2017. 5. Challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) are substantive in nature. Rights are created under the Statute and the consolidation authorities could not have denied the benefits thereof on the ground that they were not having jurisdiction to declare or confer Bhumidhari rights upon the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a proceeding under Section 122-B (4-F) was initiated by the petitioner by filing an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Puranpur, but with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the said proceeding stood abated. There was no option before the petitioner but to put his claim before the Consolidation authorities under Section 9-A (2) of the Act. The rejection of the said application by the Consolidation Officer on the plea of lack of jurisdiction has resulted in non-suiting the petitioner. There is no adjudication of claim of the petitioner at all. The Consolidation Authorities under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are empowered to transfer all nature of rights and interest with regard to the agricultural land raised by the tenure holder or any other interested person. 7. Attention of the Court is invited to the application under Section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and specific averments in paragraph No. 6 & 7 made therein were placed before the Court. It is further submitted that there exists a resolution of the land management committee dated 20.9.2016 conforming benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) to the petitioner as he falls under the category of an eligible person within the meaning of Section 195 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before this Court dwell upon the fact of the case, as far as the question of jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities for adjudication of matters under Section 122-B (4-F) is concerned, it would be appropriate to note the relevant statutory provisions. 9. Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act confers rights upon a person who is in occupation of Gram Sabha land and falls in the category as enumerated therein. 9. Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act confers rights upon a person who is in occupation of Gram Sabha land and falls in the category as enumerated therein. The provision as amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 2002 now provides that a person who is in occupation of Gram Sabha land from prior to the cut off date i.e. May 13, 2007 (amended by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2007) and the land so occupied by him together with the land held by him does not exceed 1.26 hectare (3.125 acre) shall be admitted as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights under Section 195 of the Act. It further says that it shall not be necessary for such a person to execute a suit for declaration of his right as Bhumidhar with non transferable right in that land. 10. Thus the rights conferred by the Statute are in the nature of substantive right. If the occupant of Gram Sabha land is able to fulfill the conditions enumerated under the said provision, he is entitled for being admitted as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. Initially there were different opinions with regard to the nature of rights conferred by the legislature under Section 122-B (4-F) but the clouds have been removed with the judgement of Apex Court in Monorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue (U.P.) and others, 2003 (5) SCC 521 . 11. It was held therein that sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B not only provide a shield to protect the possession of a person over Gram Sabha land but it also confers a positive right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria laid down in the said sub-section. The nature of provision being beneficial in nature specifically enacted as a measure of agrarian reform cannot be denied on the ground that the persons who is covered by sub-section (4-F) will still have to seek allotment of Gram Sabha land under Section 198 even though he is not liable for eviction. It was held that it is the bounden duty of the revenue authorities to make necessary entries in the revenue record to give effect to the statutory mandate in case applications are made by eligible persons falling within the four corners of sub-section (4-F). It was held that it is the bounden duty of the revenue authorities to make necessary entries in the revenue record to give effect to the statutory mandate in case applications are made by eligible persons falling within the four corners of sub-section (4-F). Such applications cannot be dismissed on the ground that there is no specific provision for making application under the Act to get benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B i.e. the application cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. 12. Thus, the position of law regarding the nature of rights under Section 122-B (4-F) being substantive rights is fairly well-settled. Now the issue that arises for consideration in the instant matter is as to whether the consolidation authorities were having jurisdiction to confer rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 13. To answer the said question, it would be appropriate to go through the scheme of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. Under Section 4, upon notification issued by the State Government a district or an area thereof can be brought under consolidation operation. Where upon the consolidation authorities have to enter upon and survey, to take levels of any land to fix pillars, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise of any land and to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. A public notice of the declaration issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 is to be issued by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. In continuation of the declaration under sub-section (1) a notification under sub-section (2) is to be issued by the State Government to start consolidation operations for an area covered by the declaration. 14. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 5, upon publication of notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4, every proceeding for the correction of the records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceeding can or ought to be taken under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, pending before any Court or authority of first instance including appeal, reference or revision stand abated. 15. 15. Sub clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 5, however, says that such abatement would not prejudice the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceeding before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Meaning thereby the rights and interest of any person in any dispute relating to a land falling within the consolidation area after issuance of the notification under Section 4 (2) can be raised before and be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. 16. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 further states that upon preparation of the records and the statements under Section 8 and Section 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall sent the relevant extract from the current annual register to the tenure holders concerned and other persons interested showing their rights in and liabilities in relation to the land. Any person to whom notice has been issued under sub-section (1) would be entitled to file his objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness or nature of entries in the record or the statement prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Section 9-A further states that all objections raised by the interested persons in respect of claims to land are to be settled by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties concerned. 17. Thus, looking to the entire scheme of the Act, it is more than apparent that the interested persons in the land subject-matter of consolidation can stake their claim relating to the land before the Assistant Consolidation Officer who is required to adjudicate the same under Section 9-A of the Act. The nature of rights of an occupant who claims of fulfilling the eligibility criteria of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act is substantive right. During the consolidation operations the revenue authorities are not empowered to deal with any matters relating to the land under consolidation. Thus, it is only the consolidation authorities which can look into the interest of an occupier and adjudicate his rights. 18. During the consolidation operations the revenue authorities are not empowered to deal with any matters relating to the land under consolidation. Thus, it is only the consolidation authorities which can look into the interest of an occupier and adjudicate his rights. 18. Resultantly, there cannot be a doubt to the position that the consolidation authorities will have jurisdiction to deal with the claim of an occupant of Gram Sabha land for admission as a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B and confer the same provided he fulfills the conditions of eligibility enumerated therein. It, therefore, cannot be said that the consolidation authorities will have no jurisdiction to deal with such an application. 19. Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, the consolidation officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner under Section 9-A (2) vide order dated 7.11.2016 considering the fact that the land in question was vested in the State/Gram Sabha by operation of law. In case of violation of Section 157-AA of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, wherein the sale-deed was executed by the tenure holder in violation of the provisions as contained therein, the land stood vest in State/Gram Sabha vide order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Collector. The possession of the said land was, thereafter, taken under Section 194 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Once the land is vested in the State and possession was handed over to the Gram Sabha, it can be admitted to any person only under Section 195 of the Z.A Act, who falls within the eligibility criteria provided under Section 198 of the Act as per the procedure provided therein. 20. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the person belonging to the Schedule Caste and transferee of a land in contravention of provision of Section 157-AA would, at worst, be treated as an unauthorized occupant being in occupation of Gram Sabha land after its vesting by operation of Section 166 of the Z.A. Act. The transfer by the vendor being void under Section 166, the consequences under Section 167 had followed and the land transferred to him be deemed to have been vested in the State Government from the date of transfer itself i.e. on the date of execution of the sale-deed which is 29.10.2001. The transfer by the vendor being void under Section 166, the consequences under Section 167 had followed and the land transferred to him be deemed to have been vested in the State Government from the date of transfer itself i.e. on the date of execution of the sale-deed which is 29.10.2001. Thus the petitioner being in occupation of Gram Sabha land since after 29.10.2001 as an unauthorized occupant is entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4-F). He cannot be evicted from the Gram Sabha land being member of the Schedule Caste category. The benefit as conferred upon an agricultural labourer belonging to Schedule Caste category in occupation of land vested in Gram Sabha (under Section 117 of the Act) having occupied it since before May 13, 2007 had been accrued to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Monorey (supra) has held that the rights under Section 122-B (4-F) are substantive rights conferred by the Statute. The application moved by the petitioner for granting benefit of the said provision before the Consolidation authorities, therefore, could not have been rejected on the ground that it was lacking in jurisdiction to deal with the said application. 21. Further attention of the Court has been invited to Sections 189 and 190 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to submit that there are several instances of extinction of rights and interest of Bhumidhar with transferable rights and the transfer being in contravention of the provision of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is only of the instances as provided in sub-section (aa) of Section 189. The consequence of extinction of rights of a Bhumidhar who had transferred his land in contravention of the provisions of the Act would be that the Land Management Committee under Section 194 of the Act shall be entitled to take possession of land comprised in a holding or a part thereof. The said land thus stood vest in the Gram Sabha under Section 117 of the Act. The Land Management Committee or the Gram Sabha shall then have right to admit any person to such a land under Section 195 of the Act. 22. The said land thus stood vest in the Gram Sabha under Section 117 of the Act. The Land Management Committee or the Gram Sabha shall then have right to admit any person to such a land under Section 195 of the Act. 22. Thus in crux, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rights and interest of a transferee who has been put in possession of the land belonging to a Bhumidhar transferred in contravention of the Act, are duly protected under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in as much as, he can be treated as a person being in unauthorized occupation of Gram Sabha land since the date of its vesting and would be entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, in case, he fulfills the eligibility criteria enumerated therein. 23. It is vehemently contended that in the instant case, the land vested in the Gram Saba on the execution of the sale-deed i.e. on 29.10.2001 and the petitioner being in possession of the said land from 29.10.2001 till 13.12.2007, when order was passed by the Collector for vesting of the land in the Gram Sabha, he can, at the worst, be termed as an unauthorized occupant of the land belonging to Gram Sabha. Being the occupant of Gram Sabha land fulfilling the eligibility criteria under sub-section (4-F), he is not liable to be ejected rather entitled to be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195. 24. The submission is that the right of the petitioner to be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights are still required to be recognized by the competent authority. The application moved by the petitioner before the revenue authorities remained unadjudicated on account of the commencement of the consolidation operations. The Consolidation authorities have refused to entertain the application of the petitioner for conferment of rights under Section 122-B (4-F) on the ground that they have no jurisdiction and as such the petitioner is entitled to get a direction by this Court to the competent authority to consider his claim in accordance with the provision of Section 122-B(4-F). It is thus submitted that this Court may direct the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 25. It is thus submitted that this Court may direct the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 25. To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act namely Section 122-B (4-F), Section 157-AA, Section 166, 167, 189, 190 and 194 which read as under : 122-B (4-F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before [May 13, 2007] and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and [he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land. 157AA. Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference- (a) land less agricultural labourer; (b) marginal farmer; (c) small farmer; and (d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). (2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. (2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference : (a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate; (b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate; (c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate. (3) If no person referred to in sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) No transfer under this sections shall lie made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. (3) If no person referred to in sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) No transfer under this sections shall lie made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. [(5) A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.] Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, (1) ‘agricultural labourer’ means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour; (2) ‘landless’ means the transferee who or whose wife or husband, as the case may be, or minor children, and where the transferee is a minor, also his or her parents, hold no land as bhumidhar or asami and also hold no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of transfer; (3) ‘panchayat area’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947: (4) ‘marginal farmer’ means a person residing in a village, who holds agricultural land not exceeding one hectare of unirrigated land and whose principal means of livelihood is income from agricultural land or by manual labour on such land and includes a person cultivating land as an asami or as a share-cropper; (5) ‘small farmer’ means a person residing in a village, who holds unirrigated land exceeding one hectare but not exceeding two hectares and whose principal source of livelihood is income from agricultural land or by manual labour on such land and includes a person cultivating land as an asami or as a share-cropper. [166. Transfer made in contravention of the Act to be void : Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act, shall be void.] [167. [166. Transfer made in contravention of the Act 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; (b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and (c) the transferee may remove other moveable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants, the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.] 189. Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights.—The interest of a [bhumidhar with transferable rights] in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished- (a) when he dies intestate leaving no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; [(aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act]; (b) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; or (c) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. 190. 190. Extinction of the interest of a [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights].—(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 172, the interest of a [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished— (a) when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (b) when the holding has been declared as abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 186; (c) when he surrenders his holding or part thereof; [(cc) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act]; (d) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; (e) when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (f) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to asamis also. 194. Land Management Committee to take over land after extinction of interest therein.—The [Land Management Committee] shall be entitled to take possession of land comprised in a holding or part thereof if- [(a) the land was held by a bhumidhar, and his interest in such land is extinguished under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Section 189 or Clause (a), Clause (b), Clause (c), Clause (cc) or Clause (e) of Section 190;] (b) [* * *] (c) the land being land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132, was held by an asami and the asami has been ejected or his interest therein have otherwise extinguished under the provisions of this Act.” 26. A careful reading of Section 122-B(4-F) and Section 167 shows that they are distinct and operate in different fields. Section 122-B deals with the power of the Land Management Committee and the Collector to manage the property vested in the Gram Sabha or a local authority and to ensure that such property is neither damaged or misappropriated. Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 122-B deal with the powers of the Assistant Collector to make an enquiry, issue notice to the unauthorized occupant(s) and to direct for their eviction from the land of Gram Sabha, local authority as the case may be. Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 122-B deal with the powers of the Assistant Collector to make an enquiry, issue notice to the unauthorized occupant(s) and to direct for their eviction from the land of Gram Sabha, local authority as the case may be. Remedy against the order of the Assistant Collector has been provided in Sub-section (4-A) to Sub-section (4-E) of the said Section. 27. Sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B is, however, in the nature of exception. The Section starts with a non-obstante clause. In fact the provision is an exception to the order that the Gram Sabha land cannot be settled nor can be allotted otherwise than in accordance with the relevant provisions of law nor can be allowed to remain in possession or occupation of any person unless it is allotted by means of lease/patta of the land, duly granted under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therein. The Apex Court in the case of Monery (supra) has simply held that the protection granted under sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B to an occupant of Gram Sabha land vested under Section 117 of the Act is not only in the nature of defence but confers a substantive right in view of the amendment incorporated by U.P. Act No. 11 of 2002 which provides that any such person who is in occupation of Gram Sabha land since prior to the cut off date, if fulfills the eligibility criteria enumerated therein, shall be admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable right under Section 195 and he shall not be required to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as such. 28. Being a substantive right, it is open for such a person to move an application for conferment of the said right under the Act and in case of any application moved by such a person, the revenue authorities would be under obligation to adjudicate the matter. 29. Similarly during the course of consolidation, the forum of adjudication for conferment of rights under Section 122-B (4-F) shall be the consolidation authorities who are empowered to deal with the matters relating to the lands under consolidation. 30. In so far as the status of the present petitioner is concerned, he was a transferee of a sale-deed executed by a Bhumidhar of Scheduled Caste category who had executed the sale-deed without seeking prior permission of the Collector. 30. In so far as the status of the present petitioner is concerned, he was a transferee of a sale-deed executed by a Bhumidhar of Scheduled Caste category who had executed the sale-deed without seeking prior permission of the Collector. The restriction on such transfer has been provided under Section 157-AA and consequence of violation of Section 157-AA is provided in Section 166 and 167. Section 167 simply provides the consequence of any transfer being held void by virtue of Section 166 and states that the land, subject-matter of transfer, shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of transfer. 31. As a result, the transferee would be liable to remove all movable and immovable and any material existing on such land on the date of transfer within the time as may be provided by the Collector. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 167, the Collector is entitled to enter upon the land and take its possession and to direct the eviction of any person in occupation thereof. He may use such force as may be necessary for eviction of the unauthorized occupant or taking over possession of the land. 32. The proceeding under Section 167 are in the nature of ejectment suit filed against the transferee of a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights and has to be adjudicated by the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Class. The further remedy of First Appeal and Second Appeal have been provided under Schedule-II of Section 331 of the Act against an eviction order passed under Section 167 of the Act. 33. Whereas, the eviction proceeding under Section 122-B is summary in nature and would be subject to any decision in a regular suit in the matter of title. The orders passed under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act do not operate as res judicata in a subsequent title suit. The deeming provision under Section 122-B (4-F) conferring right on an unauthorized occupant of a Gram Sabha land has been especially enacted as a measure of agrarian reforms with the thrust of socio-economic justice. The statutory rights conferred upon a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds it echo in clause-(b) of Section 131. The deeming provision under Section 122-B (4-F) conferring right on an unauthorized occupant of a Gram Sabha land has been especially enacted as a measure of agrarian reforms with the thrust of socio-economic justice. The statutory rights conferred upon a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds it echo in clause-(b) of Section 131. Any person who acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (4-F) is recognized under Section 131 (b) of the Act as falling within the class of the Bhumidhar. 34. In a case of transferee in occupation of a land which is vested in the State by operation of the clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 167 would be a person whose rights to retain possession of the land, subject-matter of transfer, extinguished with the extinction of the rights of his transferor. The rights of the transferee over the land subject-matter of transfer came into being with the execution of the sale-deed and delivery of possession to him by the transferor. He can retain possession of the land only in that capacity having stepped in the shoes of the transferor and will face consequence of Section 167 with the transfer being held void under Section 166 of the Act. He cannot seek protection of exception carved out under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act which cannot be imported in a proceeding under Section 167 of the Act so as to protect a transferee of a void transaction. Both the provision operate in different situation and distinct in nature. The transferee cannot claim any independent right under Section 122-B (4-F) in as much as, his right to retain possession of the land, subject-matter of transfer, eclipsed with the determination of the sale-deed being a void document by virtue of Section 166 of the Act. No protection has been given to a transferee of a void transaction under Section 167 of the Act. 35. In so far as the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the provisions of Section 189, 190 and 194 of the Act is concerned, it is relevant to note that the provisions of Section 189 and 190 relate to the rights of the transferors i.e. the Bhumidhar with transferable and non-transferable right who had transferred his land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 189 and 190 of the Act states that right and interest of such a person in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished and the Land Management Committee shall be entitled to take possession of such land under Section 194 of the Act. A Bench of this Court in Fateh Bahadur Singh v. Jang Bahadur Singh, 2000 RD 645, has observed that once the right of a tenure holder has come to an end, he may be evicted under Section 122 or 194 or 202 or 209 of the Act in as much as, the rights of such a tenure holder stood extinguished by operation of law. However, in case of a transferee, the eviction can be made only under Section 167 of the Act by filing a suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Class as per Schedule-II serial No. 15 column IV of the Schedule of Section 331 of the Act. 36. The adjudication having been made vide order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Collector in a proceeding under Section 167 of the Act, only course open for the petitioner was to approach the higher Courts by filing Appeals as per Schedule-II of Section 331 of the Act challenging the merits thereof. 37. Moreover, under the scheme of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, though, the land be deemed to have vested in the State on the date of the transfer itself i.e. 29.10.2001 but the possession of the petitioner till the date of adjudication under Section 167 of the Act i.e. till 13.12.2007 will be that of a transferee of a Bhumidhar with non-transferable right and not that of an unauthorized occupant and in case of eviction he will not be liable to pay damages upon an occupant as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 122-B of the Act. His possession will become that of an unauthorized occupant after the time period provided in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 167 elapsed. After expiry of said period provided to a transferee for removal of his belonging from the land, subject-matter of the sale-deed, he shall be liable to be evicted by bringing an eviction suit before the competent Court of law. 38. After expiry of said period provided to a transferee for removal of his belonging from the land, subject-matter of the sale-deed, he shall be liable to be evicted by bringing an eviction suit before the competent Court of law. 38. In view of the above discussion, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner-transferee between 29.10.2001 till 13.12.2007 can, at worst, be treated to be of an unauthorized occupant is devoid of any substance. In any case, the provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) cannot be attracted and applied in an eviction proceeding undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Act. 39. Lastly, in so far as the observation of the Consolidation Officer in the last portion of the order that it does not have jurisdiction to admit the petitioner over Gram Sabha land under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act is concerned, it is noteworthy that the said observation came in the light of the legal position as noted above. The Consolidation Officer has rightly concluded that upon the land which has been vested in the Gram Sabha vide order dated 13.12.2007, admission as Bhumidhar can only be done in accordance with Section 195 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act considering the eligibility criteria under Section 198 of the Act, which matter falls solely within the jurisdiction of the Gram Sabha or the State Government with whom the land has vested. The Consolidation Court has rightly concluded that it cannot determine the eligibility of a person for allotment of the Gram Sabha land taking note of the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner in the revision arising out of the proceeding under Section 167 of the Act for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for providing benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 40. It cannot be said that the Consolidation Officer has refused to consider the claim of the petitioner for settlement under Section 122-B (4-F) simply on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such claim rather the claim of the petitioner for providing benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) was rejected on merits. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly dismissed the revision. 41. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly dismissed the revision. 41. The view taken by the Consolidation authorities for rejection of the objection of the petitioner under Section 9-A (2) of the Act vide orders dated 7.11.2016 and 13.11.2017 cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. 42. The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.