R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THESE are two petitions one by the State and other by tenureholder against common order passed by Additional District Judge in appeal arising out of proceedings for determination of ceiling area under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The appellate authority held that sale deeds dated 8th July and 14th July 1971 were saved in proviso (b) to sub-section (6) of Section 5 as they were for adequate consideration and in good faith. In respect of other contention that petitioner was entitled to two additional hectares under Section 5 (3) as his family consisted of more than five members, the appellate authority held that daughter being born after the material date that is 8th June 1973 she could not be considered to be of petitioner's family, under Section 5 (3). Both the findings of appellate authority appear to be sound in law. The finding that sale deed was for adequate consideration and in good faith is based on consideration of evidence. It is challenged by the State only on the ground that in absence of evidence about market price of land situate in near vicinity the finding on adequate consideration is vitiated. The argument appears to be devoid of any substance. Adequacy cannot be judged on any hard and fast rule. Market value cannot be substitute nor can it be guiding factor to decide the willingness of seller. It may be one of the circumstances. There may be factors which may force a seller to dispose of his property on lesser consideration than another placed in a better situation having better bargaining capacity. That does not vitiate the sale or render consideration inadequate. Apart from it the land in dispute is situated in district Jhansi. The land has been sold at approximately Rs. 1000/- per acre. It is not averred that this was inadequate. At least the State did not lead any evidence. The tenure-holder was required to prove that consideration was adequate. He could not prove the negative. Similarly there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the strength of family for purposes of Sec. 5 (3) (b) has to be found out on the date of issue of notice u/Sec. 10 or on the date of determination of ceiling area. Section 5 (1) lays down that on and after commencement of the Act no tenureholder shall be entitled to hold land in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him. The Act came into force on 8th June 1973. On and after this date land in excess of ceiling area cannot be held. Then the ceiling area has to be computed as provided in various sub-sections of Sec. 5. Sub-section (3) provides that ceiling area of tenureholder having family of not more than five members shall be 7.30 hectares. In certain contingencies contemplated in the sub-section a tenure-holder is entitled to a maximum of 6 hectares. One of the circumstances in which additional hectares can be granted is if the members of family exceed five. But this has to be considered on the date from which petitioner is not entitled to bold land in excess of ceiling area. Sub-sections (3) and (1) have to be read together. Otherwise it would create anamoly. And the date on and after which land cannot be held in excess shall become the date of notice or the time when determination is done. This would be contrary to Act as subsection (3) itself does not provide any date or time.
(3.) IN the result both petitions fail and are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.;