B.N.Sapru, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a tenure-holder. He was served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner filed objections. In the objections, it was stated that the petitioner had executed a sale-deed of agricultural land on 2-12-1971 in respect of 18.71 acres of land situate in village Chandpai and that the petitioner had also executed two sale-deeds dated 8th March, 1971 in respect of .44 acre and 4.9 acres of land respectively. The petitioners submission was that the land comprised in the sale-deed should be excluded from his holdings while determining the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner. There were various other objections raised by the petitioner with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have, in view of the provisions of Section 5 (6) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act while determining the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner, ignored the aforesaid sale-deeds as they had been executed after the relevant date, that is, 24th Jan., 1971. Aggrieved by the orders of the Prescribed Authority and of the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) The only question on which the argument has been addressed to the court is as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the aforesaid two authorities in not excluding the lands comprised in the sale-deeds from the petitioners holdings while determining the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner. The provisions of Section 5 (6) provide that:- "In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty fourth day of Jan., 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account." Proviso (b) to sub-s, (6) of Section 5 of the Act says that:- "A transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument or not being benami transaction or for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holders or other members of his family."
(3.) In the present case, it has been stated that the transfers were effected in favour of a person who was not member of the family of the petitioner but a stranger. It has also come in evidence that the transferees under the sale-deeds are in possession.;