S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THESE three petitions arise from proceedings for determination of surplus land under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act. No. I of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The common question of law raised in these petitions relates to the value to ' be attached to transfer of land effected by a tenure-holder after the date 24-1-1971 mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act and the date 8-6-1973 with reference to which surplus area under the Act has to be determined in view of the provision contained in sub-section (1) of the said section. THESE petitions earlier came up for hearing before the three different learned Single Judges who finding conflict in the views expressed in certain Single Judge decisions ordered the papers to be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench for resolving the conflict. This is how these petitions came up before us. The petitions have been heard together.
(2.) IN Ziledar's petition the learned Single Judge has formulated the questions to be answered by this Bench and this bench is, therefore, required to answer the said questions only. So far as the other two petitions are concerned the entire case has been referred to this Bench. The two questions formulated in Ziledar's case are as follows:- (1) whether a transfer can be considered, within the meaning of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 5 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, to be in good faith and otherwise than for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family when the tenure-holder makes the transfer without any pressing necessity and only for converting the land into cash and or for avoiding its being taken over under the anticipated amendments in the Ceiling Legislation. (2) What are the broad criteria to be adopted for considering a transfer to be in good faith for purposes of the said clause (b) ? Before we proceed to discuss the legal questions raised we may briefly state the facts material for deciding the said questions. In reply to notice under section 10 (2) Ziledar petitioner in writ petition no. 138 of 1980 claimed exclusion from consideration of the land transferred through nine sale deeds executed either by him solely or by him along with his wife or by his wife alone on the basis that the said transfers were made in good faith and were for adequate consideration and fully complied with the conditions prescribed under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 5 and, therefore, the said land could not be taken into account while determining the petitioner's surplus area. The sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are as follows:- 1.Sale deed dated 1-10-1971 executed by the petitioner in favour of Sukhpal for Rs. 20, 000/- 2.Sale deed dated 8-11-1971 executed by petitioner in favour of B. Rajpal for Rs. 16,000/-; 3.Sale deed dated 1-10-1971 executed by the petitioner's wife Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of Uddey for Rs. 30,000/- 4.Sale deed dated 29-9-1974 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shanta for Rs. 5,000/-; 5.Sale deed dated 18-11-1974 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shanti for Rs. 8,000/-; 6.Sale deed dated 22-2-1975 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shabati for Rs. 14, 500/-; 7.Sale deed dated 20-8-1971 by petitioner and his wife in favour of Omvati for Rs. 3300/-; 8.Sale deed dated 8-10-1971 by the petitioner and his wife in favour of Babu Dal Singh and others for Rs. 5500/-; 9.Sale deed dated 23-3-1971 by the petitioner and his wife in favour of Satyapal and others for Rs. 3300/-;
(3.) FROM the above it would be seen that some of the deeds were executed after 24-1-1971 but before 8-6-1973 while other sale deeds were executed even after 8-6-1973. It is not clear from the material on record whether some of the deeds were executed even after publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9. The two authorities below have not excluded the area covered by the above deeds while determining the petitioner's surplus area. Writ petition No. 3113 of 1979- In this petition Kr. Birendra Singh and his wife are the petitioners. In their objection to the notice under section 10 (2) they pleaded, inter alia that they had transferred some land through sale deed dated 29-1-1974. This transaction of sale was said to be genuine and bonafide. It was also alleged that it has been executed for adequate consideration. On this basis it was claimed that the Iand covered by the sale deed was liable to be excluded from consideration in view of the prevision contained in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. It was further pleaded that plot no. 324 was unirrigated and was wrongly shown in the statement attached to the notice as irrigated. Plots numbered 377, 378 and 403 were claimed to be grove and forest. In respect of the sale of land it was pleaded that the land had to be sold in order to raise money to meer the medical expenses of petitioner no. 1 who was suffering from cancer. On the basis of the evidence on record the appellate authority has accepted the petitioners plea that the sale deed was executed to raise money to meet the medical expenses of petitioner No. 1. It has recorded a positive finding to the effect that the transaction of sale was a bonafide one and was for adequate consideration. It has also been held that the sale was not a Benami transaction. Even after recording these findings the appellate authority did not exclude the area of land covered by the sale deed from the petitioner's holding on the ground that since ceiling area was to be determined with reference to the date 8-6-1973, the transfer effected after this date could not be looked into. Thus one of the questions arising in this petition is whether a transfer effected after 8-6-1973 cannot be looked into at all even if the same is bonafide, genuine, for adequate consideration and not Benami. Two other questions arise in this petition, first, whether the appellate authority has even after holding plot no. 324 to be unirrigated omitted to grant relief to the petitioners on that basis, and secondly, whether manifest error has been committed in not holding plots numbered 377, 378 ard 403 to be grove or forest Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1976.-;