https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470580 Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is described as restricting only transfers of part of an agricultural holding, not transfer of the holding as a whole. The distinction is based on the provision's language and anti-fragmentation purpose: a whole-holding transfer changes ownership without fragmenting the holding, so prior written permission is not required. The text further states that, where Hindi and English versions of a State enactment conflict, Article 348 gives controlling effect to the authoritative English text; adoption of Hindi for official purposes does not displace that rule. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2026 14:29:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470580 Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is described as restricting only transfers of part of an agricultural holding, not transfer of the holding as a whole. The distinction is based on the provision's language and anti-fragmentation purpose: a whole-holding transfer changes ownership without fragmenting the holding, so prior written permission is not required. The text further states that, where Hindi and English versions of a State enactment conflict, Article 348 gives controlling effect to the authoritative English text; adoption of Hindi for official purposes does not displace that rule. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470580