JUDGMENT : SATISH CHANDRA, CJ. 1. These two writ petitions raise the same point. They are hence being disposed of together. Writ Petition No. 4748 of 1977 2. The Petitioner is tenure-holder. He, on 10th February, 1972, executed a registered deed of gift in respect of his 11 bighas 2 biswas of land in favour of his daughters. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and Gita Kumari and another in respect of 6 bighas 8 biswas 14 dhurs in favour of Kameshwar Rai, his sister's son. In proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act he claimed exemption on 17 bighas 10 biswas 14 dhurs on the basis of the two deeds of gift. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the Petitioner's claim, but on appeal the same was upheld. The finding was that the gift deeds were executed in good faith and for adequate consideration, namely, natural love and affection. The learned Additional District Judge excluded the gifted areas, and found that the remaining land of the Petitioner was within the ceiling limit. Notice u/s 10(2) of the Act was discharged. The appellate decision was rendered on 2nd August, 1975. 3. With the coming into force of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976, the Prescribed Authority issued another notice u/s 10(2) to the Petitioner proposing to declare 1 .29 acres as surplus land. The Petitioner filed an objection which was dismissed. He then went up in appeal, which also failed. Aggrieved, he has now come to this Court. 4. Before the learned single Judge it was stressed that the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge that the gift deeds were executed in good faith and for adequate consideration and hence were exempt under proviso (b) to Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act operates as res-judicata. 5. On the other hand, in Fateh Mohammad vs. District Judge and Others, (1979) AWC 41, it has been held that gift is not transfer for adequate consideration. 6. The learned single Judge felt that if the appellate judgment in the earlier ceiling proceedings is taken to be binding, it will be against the principle laid down by the Division Bench decision in Fateh Mohammad's case. If the Division Bench case is followed, the earlier decision of the ceiling authorities, which has become final, will lose its binding character. The learned single Judge felt that if the appellate judgment in the earlier ceiling proceedings is taken to be binding, it will be against the principle laid down by the Division Bench decision in Fateh Mohammad's case. If the Division Bench case is followed, the earlier decision of the ceiling authorities, which has become final, will lose its binding character. In view of this situation he felt it desirable that the matter be decided by a larger Bench. He referred the writ petition for decision by a larger Bench. That is how the case has come before this Bench. 7. In Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977 Krishna Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, it has been held that Section 38B, which was introduced in the Ceiling Act by Amending Act No. 20 of 1976, which came into force on 10th October, 1975 applies only where retrial is necessitated by reason of the amendments introduced by the aforesaid Amending Act becoming applicable. If in a case any provision introduced by the aforesaid Amending Act is applicable, a previous decision or finding will not bar retrial of such an issue or proceeding. In the present case the concurrent finding is that even after the execution of the gift deeds the donor continued to remain in cultivatory possession of the plots. Possession was not transferred to the donees. It has also been found that by connivance the names of the donees were got recorded in the consolidation papers only to save the tenure holder from the operation of the Ceiling Act. Possession was not transferred to the donees. It has also been found that by connivance the names of the donees were got recorded in the consolidation papers only to save the tenure holder from the operation of the Ceiling Act. In view of this finding Explanation II added to Section 5(1) of the Ceiling Act by the Amending Act of 1976 is attracted Explanation II provides - "Explanation II - If on or before January 24, 1971 any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivatory possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual registers after the said date either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person." 8. The conditions of this Explanation are satisfied. The Petitioner tenure-holder held the land on or before January 24, 1971. On the findings he continues to be in actual cultivatory possession. The names of the donees were entered in the consolidation papers somewhere in 1972. The Prescribed Authority was not satisfied that the gift deeds were acted upon. The conclusion was that the Petitioner continued to hold the land, and it was held by him ostensibly in the names of the donees. 9. Under Explanation I, in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. So, under this Explanation the lands covered by the aforesaid gift deeds were to be taken into account in determining the ceiling area of the tenure-holder. 10. Since these Explanations became attracted the proceedings were validly re-opened by issuance of a fresh notice after the coming into force of the Amending Act No. 20 of 1976. Section 38B applied, and the findings given in the earlier ceiling proceedings would not operate as res-judicata, so as to bar retrial of the issue relating to the land covered by the gift deeds. Section 38B applied, and the findings given in the earlier ceiling proceedings would not operate as res-judicata, so as to bar retrial of the issue relating to the land covered by the gift deeds. It is thus apparent that the previous decision of the ceiling authorities lost its binding character. The gift deeds were rightly ignored. 11. The writ petition has no substance, and is accordingly dismissed with costs. 12. The same is the position in Writ Petition No. 1544 of 1977 Dwarika Singh vs. Prescribed Authority, which has also been referred by the same learned single Judge for the reasons given in the earlier case. 13. Here also the finding is that the donees were not in possession. The Petitioner, who was the executant of the gift deed, continued to remain in cultivatory possession. The gift deed was executed on 17th December, 1971, that is, after the relevant date. In this case also the Explanations which were newly added by the Amending Act II of 1975 became attracted, and so the previous decision could not bar retrial. 14. For the reasons given above, this petition also fails and is dismissed with costs.