JUDGMENT J. Sahai, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of Dwivedi, J. dated 22nd January, 1964, dismissing with costs writ petition No. 254 of 1963 filed by the Appellant, Laxmi Lal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant). 2. The Appellant had purchased from Kunwar Ramnath son of Raja Radha Raman certain agricultural plots of land including plots Nos. 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1520/1 and 1521/1 situate in village Pakaria Naugawan, Chak Mustaqil, Pergana, Tahsil and district Pilibhit for a sum of Rs. 1500/. The sale deed in respect of these plots was executed on 15th of September 1959 and was registered the same day. The total area of the plots mentioned above is 12.50 acres. 3. Proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started in order to determine the 'surplus land' with Kunwar Ram nath. Out of these 12.50 acres of land, 8. 35 acres were declared by the pres cribed Authority to be 'surplus land'. In coming to that conclusion he ignored the sale mentioned above. 4. The Appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bareilly. That appeal was heard by the Temporary Civil Judge, Pilibhit who dismissed it on 16.1.1963. Thereafter writ petition No. 254 of 1963 was filed in this Court which was heard and dis-missed by Dwivedi, J. as already stated earlier. The following two submissions were made before Dwivedi, J. - Though the sale deed was executed and registered on September 15, 1959, the transaction had taken place on 4th August l959, on which date the sale consideration also passed, with the result that the sale must be deemed to have been made on 4th of August 1959 and not on 15th of September 1959. 2. That the correct interpretation of Section 5(2) is that any transfer or partition made after 20th day of August 1959 shall be ignored only for the limited purpose of determining the "ceiling area" applicable to a tenure-holder and not for the purpose of declaring the "surplus land". Neither of the two submissions prevailed with Dwivedi, J. and he dismissed the writ petition. 5. Mr. Khare has not very seriously reiterated before us the first submission that he made before Dwivedi, J. But since the submission has been made, we would dispose it of in brief. Neither of the two submissions prevailed with Dwivedi, J. and he dismissed the writ petition. 5. Mr. Khare has not very seriously reiterated before us the first submission that he made before Dwivedi, J. But since the submission has been made, we would dispose it of in brief. We agree with Dwivedi, J. that "there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the sale was firmly negotiated on August 4 1959. Besides, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a sale of tangible immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards shall be made only by a registered instrument. Admittedly in the present case the sale consideration was Rs. 1500/- and for that reason the sale could only be made by means of a written and registered instrument. The sale, therefore, actually took place on the 15th of September 1959 and not on 4th of August 1959. 6. Mr. Khare placed reliance upon AIR 1927 42 (Privy Council) , Venkat Subba Sriniwas Hedge v. Subba Rama Hedge (2) AIR 1928 (PC) 86 and Mahadeo Singh v. Mian Din and Ors. (3) 1938 AWR (HC) 370, which as pointed out by Dwivedi, J are clearly distinguishable. We, therefore, find no merits in the first submission of Mr. Khare. 7. The second submission of Mr. Khare is that Section 5(2) of the Act does not say that any transfer or partition after the 20th day of August, 1959 is void but only says that the same "shall be ignored and not taken into account''. His submission, therefore, is that except for the limited purposes contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, all transfers or partitions even after 20th of August 1959 are valid. He adds that the only purpose for which it is invalid is for "determining the ceiling area". In support of his submission he places reliance upon the words "in determining the ceiling area" with which Sub-section (2) of Section 5 opens. In our judgment the submission is without force. There are no two separate proceedings, one for determining the ceiling area and the other for declaring the surplus land. The two steps, i.e., one of determining the ceiling area and the other for declaring the surplus land are integral parts of the same proceeding. In our judgment the submission is without force. There are no two separate proceedings, one for determining the ceiling area and the other for declaring the surplus land. The two steps, i.e., one of determining the ceiling area and the other for declaring the surplus land are integral parts of the same proceeding. The determination ot the ceiling area and the declaration of the surplus land are practically simultaneous, for what of a holding is in excess of ceiling area is necessarily the surplus land. 8. Mr. Khare wants to read the words "in determining the ceiling area" as "for the purposes of determining the ceiling area." There is no justification for introducing the words "for the purpose of" before the words "determining the ceiling area" in Section 5(2) of the Act. The Legislature admittedly has not used them and the expression "for the purposes of determining the ceiling area" cannot be equated with or is not the same thing as "in determining the ceiling area". In our judgment all that the expression means is "while determining the ceiling area" or "in the proceedings relating to the determination of the ceiling area." Consequently we are satisfied that the expression "in determining the ceiling area" does not support the submission that it is only for the purposes of "determining the ceiling area" that the transfers or partitions made after the 20th day of August 1959 would be ignored. This is also apparent form the words "which but for the transfer or partition would have been declared surplus land under the provisions of this Act." These words have been used in order to preserve the surplus area and the substance of these words is that the transfers or partitions made after the 20th of August 1959 cannot act to the detriment of any area being declared surplus and have got to be ignored even for that purpose. Actually if the whole of the Sub-section (2) is read together, it clearly follows that the idea is not to permit any tenure-holder to defraud the State by robbing it of its surplus land by making transfers or partitions after the 20th day of August 1959. The concept of "ceiling area" is directly and inseparably co-realated to the concept of "surplus land" and what is to be ignored for the one is also to be ignored for the other. The concept of "ceiling area" is directly and inseparably co-realated to the concept of "surplus land" and what is to be ignored for the one is also to be ignored for the other. In our view Sub-section (2) of Section 5 clearly provides that all transfers or partitions made after the 20th day of August 1959 shall be ignored even for the purposes of determining the surplus land. 9. Again Section 5(2) of the Act uses the words "shall be ignored and not taken into account." These words relate both to the "ceiling area" and the "surplus land" and consequently tr-ansfers and partitions after the 20th of August 1959 have got to be ignored for the purposes of determining the "surplus land" also. We would also like to point out that the expression "shall be ignored and not taken into account" is of the widest amplitude, is not confined to ceiling area alone and clearly means "shall be ignored and not taken into account for any purpose under the Act." This conclusion of ours is fortified by the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, which provides for payment of compensation to the tenure-holder whose surplus land has vested in the State and does not provide for any compensation to a transferee or an allotted in a partition after the 20th of August 1959. There is no provision in the Act which recognises transfers or partitions made after 20th of August 1959 for any purpose and it is clear that the Act takes no notice of the same. The legislature did not deliberately use the word "void'' because the idea was to exclude all such transactions only for the purposes of the Act and not to deprive the transferee or the allotted in a partition, of his remedy by way of a regular suit either for damages or for refund of sale consideration or for compensation as contemplated in Section 23 of the Act. Section 22(4) of the Act supports our view inasmuch as it provides that the payment of compensation 'shall be full discharge of all liability of the State Government for compensation in respect of the surplus land, but shall not prejudice any right, in respect of such compensation of any other person against the person to whom such payment is so made." 10. As is apparent from the preamble of the statute, the Act has been passed inter' alia "to provide land for landless agricultural labourers" and for "a more equitable distribution of land" as also in the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production "and for other public purposes as best to susberve the common good". The object of the Act, therefore, is to carve out land from the large holdings so that the remaining holdings may be manageable and capable of more intensive cultivation as also to provide land to those who have not got it or who have very little of it. Under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act the maximum area which a tenure holder can hold has been provided for. This maximum area, which he can hold, has been called "the ceiling area". Actually Section 3(a) defines "ceiling area" as "the area of land, not being land exempted under this Act, determined as such in accordance with the provisions of Section 4". Section 5 provides for imposition of ceiling of existing land holdings and reads: 5. Imposition of ceiling of existing land holdings-(1) As and from the date of enforcement of this Act no tenure holder shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to hold an area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him, anything contained in any other law, custom, or usage for the time being in force, or agreement, to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder at the commencement of this Act any transfer or partition of land made after the twentieth day of August, 1959, which but for the transfer or partition would have been declared surplus land under the provisions of this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. (3) The provisions of Sub-section (2) shall have no application to- (a) a transfer in favour of the State Government; (b) a partition under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act v. of 1954), or (c) a partition of the holding of a Joint Hindu family made by a suit or proceeding pending on twentieth day of August, 1959. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 enjoins that no tenure holder shall as from the date of enforcement of this Act be entitled to hold an area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 enjoins that no tenure holder shall as from the date of enforcement of this Act be entitled to hold an area in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Sub-section (2) provides that in the proceedings relating to the determination of the ceiling area all transfers or partitions made after the 20th August 1959, shall be ignored. Section 12 provides for the determination of the surplus land. 'Surplus land" has been defined by Section 3(k) as "land held by a tenure holder in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him and shall include buildings, wells and trees existing thereon.'' Section 14 provides for the acquisition of surplus land and its vesting in the State Government free from all encumbrances and declares that no person shall for the purposes of the Act have any right, title or interest in the surplus land (Underlined by us-here within bold letters). The words underlined exclude every one except the State Government and there is no exception even in the case of transferees or allottees in partition, after the 20th of August, 1959. 11. Reading the relevant provisions of the Act together with the preamble, it is clear that the scheme of the Act is to allow to a tenure holder only such area which is not in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him and to declare the remaining area as surplus area, which is to vest in the State Government and for which the tenure-holder is to receive compensation only. 12. All the provisions mentioned above must be harmoniously read in order to find out the real intention of the legislature. When read in that manner, it clearly follows that the transfers or partitions made after 20th day of August 1959 are to be ignored not only for the purposes of determine the "ceiling area", but also tor declaring the "surplus land''. In fact Sub-section (7) of Section 14 clearly provides that except the State no one shall be considered to have any right, title or interest in the surplus land, thus excluding even persons who may claim to have become entitled to the surplus land or a part thereof by virtue of a transfer or partition made after 20th of August 1959. 13. 13. A perusal of Section 9 of the Act reveals that a tenure holder has to sub it "a statement in respect of all his holdings" and to indicate "the plot or plots for which he claims exemption and also those which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him under the provisions of this Act". From this it follows that for the purposes of determining the "ceiling area" and the "surplus land", the entire holding has to be looked into and it is obvious that if for the one transfers or partitions made after 20th August 1959 are to be ignored, for the other also they shall not be taken into account. 14. For the reasons mentioned above we are satisfied that there is no substance in the second submission of the learned Counsel also. 15. Mr. Khare placed reliance upon a passage in Maxwell's "On The Interpretation of Statutes", eleventh edition, at pages 201 and 202 which reads: Where a repealed Act provided that, if the purchaser at an auction refused to pay the auction duty when this was made a condition of sale, his bidding should be "null and void to all intents and purposes", it was held that the object of the enactment was completely attained by making the bidding voidable only at the option of the seller, thus avoiding the injustice and impolicy of enabling a man to escape from the obligation of his contract by his own wrongful act, which a leteral construction would have involved. Mr. Khare relies upon this passage for the proposition that in order to avoid injustice and impolicy of enabling a man to escape from the obligation of his contract by his own wrongful act, a literal construction can be departed from. This passage has no relevance to the facts before us. Besides, in the present case we have already held that the legislative policy as indicated in the Act is to ignore transfers or partitions made after 20th of August 1959. 16. Mr. This passage has no relevance to the facts before us. Besides, in the present case we have already held that the legislative policy as indicated in the Act is to ignore transfers or partitions made after 20th of August 1959. 16. Mr. Khare also placed reliance upon Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which deals with restrictions on transfer from Bhumidhars and provides that "no Bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer, by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person (other than an institution established for a charitable purpose) where such person shall, as a result of the sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held by himself or together with his family, will, in the aggregate, exceed 12 1/2 acres in Uttar Pardesh." He contends that inasmuch as in the present case the transfer in favour of the Appellant is not for more than 12 1/2 acres of land, the transfer is valid. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission. It may be (we express no opinion) that the transfer in the present case is not hit by Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but it is certainly hit by Section 5(2) of the Act. We are not called upon to consider whether it is hit by Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 17. No other submission has been made before us. 18. Being satisfied that there are no merits in this special appeal, we dismiss it with costs.