ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - This petition raises an important question of jurisdiction of prescribed authority to consider transfer made by a person to whom provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (here referred to as Act) do not apply while determining surplus area of another. Facts in brief giving rise to it are that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued to petitioner No. 2 which was contested and one of the objections was that his father had executed registered gift on 22-6-1972 in favour of his sister, petitioner No. 1 therefore, the land covered by it could not be clubbed in his holding. On 21-1-1977 the objection was rejected. In appeal the order was set aside and by its order dated 26-3-1977 the appellate authority directed the prescribed authority to decide the objection afresh. While the matter was pending on remand petitioner No. 1 also appeared and filed an objection claiming to be tenure-holder of the land gifted to her. She was supported by petitioner No. 2. The objection was not decided as prescribed authority felt that he was bound by directions of appellate authority and could not go beyond it. In appeal it was held that transfer made after 24-1-71 is liable to be ignored under sub-section (g) (6) of Section 5 of the Act whether it was made by tenure-holder or any other person. The appellate authority further found that the gift was not for adequate consideration, therefore, neither petitioner No. 2 nor petitioner No. 1. were entitled to any benefit. 2. In Fateh Mohd v. State it has been held that in a gift no monetary consideration is involved therefore it cannot be subject matter of consideration under proviso to Section 5 (6) of the Act. 'Citation not given in certified copy. 3. The primary question, however, is. whether transfer by a third person could also be ignored under this sub-section. On facts found it is established that Raghuraj Singh, father of petitioner, was a tenure-holder of 3 Bighas and odd only. To him provision of Ceiling Act, therefore, did not apply. He was a 'bhumidhar' and under provisions of Act he was entitled to transfer the land in dispute by gift, will or sale. As gift was made by him it was valid and the appellate authority rightly recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner. To him provision of Ceiling Act, therefore, did not apply. He was a 'bhumidhar' and under provisions of Act he was entitled to transfer the land in dispute by gift, will or sale. As gift was made by him it was valid and the appellate authority rightly recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner. The effect of execution of the gift deed was that Raghuraj Singh ceased to be a tenure-holder since 1972. This land, therefore, could not be subject matter of devolution or succession on his death in 1975. In law it could not be inherited by petitioner No. 2. 4. The view taken by appellate authority on applicability of sub-sec. (6) to transfers made by third person does not appear to be correct. The sub-sec.. reads as under. "(6) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and taken into account. Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to. (a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred to in. sub-section (2). (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a `benami' transaction or for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holders or other members of his family. Explanation No. 1. For the purposes of this sub-section the expression 'transfer of land made after the twenty fourth day of January, 1971' includes. (a) a declaration of a person as a cotenure-holder made after the twenty fourth day of January, 1971, in a suit or proceeding irrespective of whether such suit or proceeding was pending on or was instituted after the twenty fourth day of January, 1971. (b) any admission, acknowledgement relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. Explanation No. 2. (b) any admission, acknowledgement relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. Explanation No. 2. The burden of proving that a case falls within clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit." It is true that the expression `any transfer of land made after 24th day of January, 1971' does not refer the transfer made by the tenure-holder yet from the context in which it has been used and a reading of the sub-section indicates that it is the transfer made by tenure holder which is liable to be ignored under this provision while determining his ceiling area. In sub-sec. (1) no tenure holder is entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him, The two explanations appended to Section 5 relates to the tenure holder mentioned in sub-section (1). From these it is clear that the transfer referred to in sub-section (6) has to be read along with the word tenure holder. In other words transfer made by tenure holder only after 24th day of January, 1971, could be ignored. 5. The expression which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus' cannot be read in isolation. It should be read as part of the entire subsection if transfer made by a third person and cannot be a subject matter of consideration in sub-section (6). The appellate authority, therefore, committed an error in recording a finding that the gift made by father was to be ignored while determining ceiling area of the son. 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by appellate authority is quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to exclude plots Nos. 506, 1012. 279/6, 1012, 1059 and 412 area 3-10-15 which were gifted by Raghuraj Singh in favour of petitioner in June, 1972. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.