Judgment S.C. Mathur, J. 1. THESE three petitions arise from proceedings for determination of surplus land under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act. No. I of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The common question of law raised in these petitions relates to the value to ' be attached to transfer of land effected by a tenure-holder after the date 24-1-1971 mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act and the date 8-6-1973 with reference to which surplus area under the Act has to be determined in view of the provision contained in sub-section (1) of the said section. THESE petitions earlier came up for hearing before the three different learned Single Judges who finding conflict in the views expressed in certain Single Judge decisions ordered the papers to be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench for resolving the conflict. This is how these petitions came up before us. The petitions have been heard together. 2. IN Ziledar's petition the learned Single Judge has formulated the questions to be answered by this Bench and this bench is, therefore, required to answer the said questions only. So far as the other two petitions are concerned the entire case has been referred to this Bench. The two questions formulated in Ziledar's case are as follows:- (1) whether a transfer can be considered, within the meaning of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 5 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, to be in good faith and otherwise than for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family when the tenure-holder makes the transfer without any pressing necessity and only for converting the land into cash and or for avoiding its being taken over under the anticipated amendments in the Ceiling Legislation. (2) What are the broad criteria to be adopted for considering a transfer to be in good faith for purposes of the said clause (b) ? Before we proceed to discuss the legal questions raised we may briefly state the facts material for deciding the said questions. 3. IN reply to notice under section 10 (2) Ziledar petitioner in writ petition no. Before we proceed to discuss the legal questions raised we may briefly state the facts material for deciding the said questions. 3. IN reply to notice under section 10 (2) Ziledar petitioner in writ petition no. 138 of 1980 claimed exclusion from consideration of the land transferred through nine sale deeds executed either by him solely or by him along with his wife or by his wife alone on the basis that the said transfers were made in good faith and were for adequate consideration and fully complied with the conditions prescribed under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of section 5 and, therefore, the said land could not be taken into account while determining the petitioner's surplus area. The sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are as follows:- 1.Sale deed dated 1-10-1971 executed by the petitioner in favour of Sukhpal for Rs. 20, 000/- 2.Sale deed dated 8-11-1971 executed by petitioner in favour of B. Rajpal for Rs. 16,000/-; 3.Sale deed dated 1-10-1971 executed by the petitioner's wife Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of Uddey for Rs. 30,000/- 4.Sale deed dated 29-9-1974 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shanta for Rs. 5,000/-; 5.Sale deed dated 18-11-1974 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shanti for Rs. 8,000/-; 6.Sale deed dated 22-2-1975 by petitioner's wife in favour of Shabati for Rs. 14, 500/-; 7.Sale deed dated 20-8-1971 by petitioner and his wife in favour of Omvati for Rs. 3300/-; 8.Sale deed dated 8-10-1971 by the petitioner and his wife in favour of Babu Dal Singh and others for Rs. 5500/-; 9.Sale deed dated 23-3-1971 by the petitioner and his wife in favour of Satyapal and others for Rs. 3300/-; 4. FROM the above it would be seen that some of the deeds were executed after 24-1-1971 but before 8-6-1973 while other sale deeds were executed even after 8-6-1973. It is not clear from the material on record whether some of the deeds were executed even after publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9. The two authorities below have not excluded the area covered by the above deeds while determining the petitioner's surplus area. Writ petition No. 3113 of 1979. In this petition Kr. Birendra Singh and his wife are the petitioners. The two authorities below have not excluded the area covered by the above deeds while determining the petitioner's surplus area. Writ petition No. 3113 of 1979. In this petition Kr. Birendra Singh and his wife are the petitioners. In their objection to the notice under section 10 (2) they pleaded, inter alia that they had transferred some land through sale deed dated 29-1-1974. This transaction of sale was said to be genuine and bonafide. It was also alleged that it has been executed for adequate consideration. On this basis it was claimed that the land covered by the sale deed was liable to be excluded from consideration in view of the prevision contained in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. It was further pleaded that plot no. 324 was unirrigated and was wrongly shown in the statement attached to the notice as irrigated. Plots numbered 377, 378 and 403 were claimed to be grove and forest. In respect of the sale of land it was pleaded that the land had to be sold in order to raise money to meer the medical expenses of petitioner no. 1 who was suffering from cancer. On the basis of the evidence on record the appellate authority has accepted the petitioners plea that the sale deed was executed to raise money to meet the medical expenses of petitioner No. 1. It has recorded a positive finding to the effect that the transaction of sale was a bonafide one and was for adequate consideration. It has also been held that the sale was not a Benami transaction. Even after recording these findings the appellate authority did not exclude the area of land covered by the sale deed from the petitioner's holding on the ground that since ceiling area was to be determined with reference to the date 8-6-1973, the transfer effected after this date could not be looked into. Thus one of the questions arising in this petition is whether a transfer effected after 8-6-1973 cannot be looked into at all even if the same is bonafide, genuine, for adequate consideration and not Benami. Two other questions arise in this petition, first, whether the appellate authority has even after holding plot no. Thus one of the questions arising in this petition is whether a transfer effected after 8-6-1973 cannot be looked into at all even if the same is bonafide, genuine, for adequate consideration and not Benami. Two other questions arise in this petition, first, whether the appellate authority has even after holding plot no. 324 to be unirrigated omitted to grant relief to the petitioners on that basis, and secondly, whether manifest error has been committed in not holding plots numbered 377, 378 and 403 to be grove or forest Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1976.- 5. IN this petition only one question was pressed and that related to the transfer of land effected by Smt. Kanti Devi, petitioner no. 2 who is the wife of petitioner no. 1 through registered deed dated 12-2-1974. This sale deed has been held by the appellate authority to be void as it was executed after the publication of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9. IN recording this finding reliance has been placed on sub-section (8) of Section 5. 6. WE have beard Sri Vinai Singh, counsel for Ziledar, Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava, counsel for Kunwar Birendra Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi and Sri S. P. Gupta counsel for Om Prakash Agarwal and Smt. Kanti Devi Agarwal and Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri S. P. Gupta urged that sub-section (8) of Section 5 invalidated a transfer effected by a tenure-holder but it did not invalidate a transfer made by tenure-holder's wife although in view of the provisions contained in the Act the wife's land could be clubbed with the land of her husband. Further urging that petitioner no. 2 who executed a disputed sale deed was not a tenure-holder under the Act, the learned counsel relied upon the definition of the term "tenure-holder" given in clause (17) of Section 3. 7. SRI Vinai Singh argued that once it was found that transfer was not sham or fictitious it will enjoy the benefit conferred under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 and that there need not be pressing necessity for transferring the land. According to the learned counsel a transfer would be sham or fictitious when inspite of the transfer the property continued to remain with the transferor and the transferee did not get any benefit out of the transaction. According to the learned counsel a transfer would be sham or fictitious when inspite of the transfer the property continued to remain with the transferor and the transferee did not get any benefit out of the transaction. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon a recent decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh v. State of U. P., 1981 AWC 125 (SC). 8. SRI Raj Kumar Srivastava contended that the benefit of clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 5 was available even to sale deeds executed after 8-6-1973 and in view of the findings of fact recorded in favour of the petitioners the land transferred by Smt. Kamla Devi had to be excluded from consideration while determining the ceiling area of the petitioners. In order to appreciate the legal position relevant clauses of Section 5 may be extracted. They are as follows : "5. IMPOSITION OF CEILING:- (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. 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. 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. 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 register 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." "S. 5(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 not taken into account: Provided that nothing in this sub-section 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 immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. Explanation I.-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 co-tenure-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, acknowledgment, relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. (b) any admission, acknowledgment, 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 II-The burden of proving that a case falls within clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit." S. 5(8)-Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6) and (7), no tenure-holder shall transfer any land held by him during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land in relation to such tenure-holder and every transfer made in contravention of this sub-section shall be void. Explanation :-For the purposes of this sub-section proceedings for determination of surplus land shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of publication of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have concluded on the date when an order in relation to such tenure-holder is passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 or under sub-section (1) of Section 12, or as the case may be, under Section 13." INTERPRETATION 9. THE U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 was enforced with effect from 8-6-1973. Therefore in view of the provision contained in sub-section (1), on and from 8-6-1973 a person who is a tenure-holder cannot hold land in excess of his ceiling area. In view of Explanation I to sub-section (1) all the land held by the tenure-holder has to be taken into account while determining his ceiling and surplus areas, irrespective of the fact whether the land is held by the tenure-holder in his own name or in the name of someone else fictitiously. While considering the question whether a land held ostensibly in the name of another person actually belongs to the tenure-holder, the rule of evidence prescribed in Explanation II to sub-section (1) has to be followed. This rule of evidence applies to the case where on or before 24-1-1971 a land was held by the tenure-holder but after this date it came to be recorded in the name of someone else although the tenure-holder continued to be in its possession by cultivating the same. This rule will apply also to the situation where the name of the tenure-holder is not completely obliterated from the records and alongwith his name the name of someone else too comes to be recorded. This rule will apply also to the situation where the name of the tenure-holder is not completely obliterated from the records and alongwith his name the name of someone else too comes to be recorded. In both the situations the Prescribed Authoritity is required under this Explanation to presume that the land continues to be held by the tenure-holder who held it prior to 24-1-1971. This presumption is, however, rebuttable as is evident from the use of the words "unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority". Sub-section (6) contains extension of the principle contained in Explanation I. It provides for ignoring the sale deeds executed after 24-1-1971. However all sale deeds executed after this date are not to be ignored. Sale deeds which are not sham or fictitious have to be taken into account and the land conveyed by such deeds has to be excluded from the holding of the tenure-holder. This is so because of the provision contained in proviso (b) to sub-section (6). In view of the proviso the command contained in sub-section (6) for ignoring transfer effected after 24-1-1971 will not apply if the following conditions are satisfied : L THE transfer is made in good faith ; 2. It is made for adequate consideration ; 3. It is made through an irrevocable instrument ; that is, there should be a written document; 4. THE transaction of transfer is not "Benami" ; 5. THE transfer is not made for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. 10. IN view of the second requirement a gratuitous transfer will fall outside the purview of proviso (b). Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act sale of tangible immovable property of the value of less than Rs. 100/-may be made by mere delivery of the property ; no written instrument or document is required. But such a transfer will also fall outside the purview of the proviso in view of the third requirement enumerated above. Requirements 1, 4 and 5 embody the principles that the transfer should not be sham or fictitious. When a benami transfer is made the title vests in the actual owner and not in the person whose name is shown in the transfer deed. Requirements 1, 4 and 5 embody the principles that the transfer should not be sham or fictitious. When a benami transfer is made the title vests in the actual owner and not in the person whose name is shown in the transfer deed. A transfer may be designed in such a manner that the transferee does not get any benefit or gets insignificant benefit under the deed and the benefit or substantial benefit actually goes to the transferor or the members of his family. The benefit or substantial benefit may come to the transferor or the members of his family at the time the transfer is made or subsequently. Such a transfer also will not have the protection of proviso (b) in view of the fifth requirement mentioned above. Where requirements 2 to 5 are satisfied the transfer can be treated to be in good faith so as to fulfil the first requirement. There may, however, be a case where requirements 2 to 5 are satisfied but it is found that the only purpose of effecting the transfer was to circumvent the provisions of the Act. Such a transfer cannot be said to be in good faith and the land covered by such transfer cannot be excluded from the holding of the tenure-holder while determining his ceiling area. On the question as to what constitues good faith a number of authorities were cited before us but it is unnecessary to refer to them in view of the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh's case (supra). This case arose under the Act itself and their Lordships examined the question of good faith with reference to the proviso (b) of sub-sec. (6). In paragraph 18 of the judgment their Lordships observed at p. 128 as follows : "____Although the meaning of "good faith" may vary in the context of different statutes, subjects and situations, honest intent free from taint or fraud or fraudulent design, is a constant element of its connotation....." When a transfer is made to circumvent or to defeat the provisions of an Act the element of honest intent is obviously lacking and the transfer therefore cannot be said to be in good faith. Again in paragraph 19 occurring at page 129 it has been observed thus :- "......A transfer solely for the purpose of converting surplus land into cash without any kind of need (not to be confused with legal necessity) may also lack good faith." 11. IN the above case the tenure-holder sold his land in order to raise money for purchasing land at New Delhi on which he intended to construct residential house in which he proposed to live after his retirement from Government service. The appellate authority, whose judgment was upheld by this Court, held that since the tenure-holder had failed to prove any impelling necessity for building a house at New Delhi it could not be said that the sale was not effected to avoid ceiling law. The theory of impelling necessity was not approved by their Lordships who, after examining the question in detail, laid down the law in following terms in paragraph 20 at page 129 :- "......Once it is established by the transferring tenure-holder that the transfer in question effected in the course of ordinary management of his affiairs, was made for adequate consideration and he has genuinely absolutely and irrevocably divested himself of all right, title and interest (including cultivatory possession) in the land in favour of the transferee the onus under Explanation II, in the absence of any circumstances, suggestive of collusion, or an intention or design, to defraud or circumvent the Ceiling Act, on the tenure-holder to show that the transfer was effected in good faith, will stand discharged, and it will not be necessary for the tenure-holder to prove further that the transfer was made for an impelling need or to raise money for meeting a pressing legal necessity. Although proof of the fact that a transfer Was made for a valid pressing necessity, may highlight or strengthen the inference in favour of the genuineness of the transfer, it is not an indispensable constituent of good faith'; nor is the proof of legal necessity requisite, as a matter of law, to enable a tenure-holder to avail of the benefit of clause (b) of proviso" 12. IN view of the above the following conditions should exist before the benefit of proviso (b) may be allowed to a tenure-holder in respect of sale effected by him :- 1. The transfer is not effected to circumvent or avoid the provisions of the Act: 2. IN view of the above the following conditions should exist before the benefit of proviso (b) may be allowed to a tenure-holder in respect of sale effected by him :- 1. The transfer is not effected to circumvent or avoid the provisions of the Act: 2. The transfer is effected through a written document; 3. The transfer is not gartuitous but is for consideration; 4. The consideration is adequate and not low; 5. After effecting the transfer the transferor completely divests himself of his interest in the land, including cultivatory possession; 6. The transfer is not designed in such a manner that the actual or substantial beneficiary thereunder is the transferor himself or the members of his family, whether immediately or at a future date; 7. The transfer is not effected solely for the purpose of converting land into cash. It may further be stated that pressing necessity is not a necessary ingredient of good faith. Even if there is no pressing necessity but the transfer is effected in the course of prudent management of affairs, such transfer will also qualify for the protection afforded by proviso (b). 13. THE above are the broad criteria that may be adopted for considering the question good faith under proviso (b). 14. THE next question that requires consideration is whether the benefit of proviso (b) can be extended also to the transfers effected after 8-6-1973. Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that since in view of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 the ceiling area is to be determined with reference to the date 8-6-1973, all transfers effected after this date will have to be treated as void. According to the learned counsel the title in the land becomes frozen crystallised on 8-6-1973 and on and from this date there can be no variation or change in the title and since the effect of transfer is change or variation in title, transfer itself becomes completely prohibited on and from 8-6-1973. In our opinion in view of the provision contained in sub-sec. In our opinion in view of the provision contained in sub-sec. (1) of section 5, the ceiling area is to be determined with reference to the person who is tenure-holder on 8-6-1973 which means that if the tenure-holder dies after 8-6-1973 leaving several heirs, the entire land held by such tenure-holder will be taken as the unit for determining the ceiling and surplus areas and not the individual shares inherited by the heirs. In other words, the succession will be ignored and for the purposes of the ceiling proceedings, the deceased tenure-holder will be treated as alive, although his heirs will be substituted and brought on record. But for the provision contained in Section 5(1), each heir could have claimed that the share inherited by him may be considered separately and out of this share land equivalent to his ceiling area may be left with him. THE Act does not specifically provide for treating all transfers effected after 8-6-1973 as void. If we accept the argument of the learned counsel we will have to read in the Act an implied provision for treating all transfers effected on and after 8-6-1973 as void. Such an implied provision cannot be read when the Act itself contains a specific date from which all the transfers are to be treated as void. This date is specified in sub-section (8) of Section 5. Under this sub-section no tenure-holder is entitled to transfer land during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land. In the Explanation appended to the sub-section it has been explanied that proceedings for determination of surplus land shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of publication of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9. This under sub-section (8) read with the Explanation the right to transfer land is taken away as soon as notice under Section 9(2) is published. In other words the right to transfer continues subject of course to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) upto the stage of publication of notice under Section 9(2). THE consequences of a transfer made after the publication of the notice is also provided in sub-section (8) itself which says that such a transfer shall be void. In case we accept the argument of the learned Chief Standing Counsel there would be two dates from which the transfer of land will be prohibited, one specified date and the other implied date. In case we accept the argument of the learned Chief Standing Counsel there would be two dates from which the transfer of land will be prohibited, one specified date and the other implied date. When the Legislature itself has fixed a date for depriving a tenure-holder of his right to transfer land it is not possible for the courts to fix another date in addition to or in substitution of the said date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the benefit of proviso (b) is available also to transfers effected between 8-6-1973 and the date on which notice under Section 9(2) is published. THE view that we have taken herein was taken by B. N. Sapru, J. also in Km. Madhubala v. State af U. P., 1978 ALJ 1039. Contrary view were expressed by M. P. Mehrotra, J. in Jairam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 AWC 624 and by Mufti, J. in Smt. Kunwar Rani Sushila Deil v. State, 1978 ALJ 1099. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore we respectfully agree with the view expressed by brother Sapru, J. and regret our inability to agree with the view taken by our learned brethren Mehrotra and Mufti, JJ. The only question that now survives for determination is the one raised by Sri S. P. Gupta in the writ petition of Om Prakash Agarwal and another. Under sub-section (8) a tenure-holder has been prohibited from transferring the land during the continuance of proceedings for determining surplus land. The term 'tenure-holder' has been defined in clause (17) af Section 3 as follows :- "(17) 'tenure-holder' means a person who is the holder of a holding, but except, in Chapter III does not include- (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder ; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder." 15. IN the present case we are not concerned with the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Act which deal with the determination of compensation. Therefore for the purposes of the present case we can ignore the words "except in Chapter III" occurring in the definition of the term "tenure-holder". Ignoring these words the term 'tenure-holder' means the "holder of a holding". Therefore for the purposes of the present case we can ignore the words "except in Chapter III" occurring in the definition of the term "tenure-holder". Ignoring these words the term 'tenure-holder' means the "holder of a holding". Now the meaning of the term 'tenure-holder' has to be determined with reference to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 5 and with reference to the definition of the term 'family' given in clause (7) of Section 3. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 provides as follows "5(3). Subject to the provision's of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be-(a) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family) plus Two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land ; (b) in the case of a tenure-holder having family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who holds less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land." 16. FROM the above provision it is obvious that in determining ceiling area the family is treated as the unit and, therefore, all the land possessed by the members of the family as defined in the Act will have to be aggregated or clubbed together. FROM the above provision it is obvious that in determining ceiling area the family is treated as the unit and, therefore, all the land possessed by the members of the family as defined in the Act will have to be aggregated or clubbed together. The term 'family' has been defined in clause (7) of Section 3 as follows :- "'family' in relation to a tenure-holder, means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially sparated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters other than married daughters." Under the above definition minor son, minor unmarried daughter, the tenure-holder and his or her spouse constitute tenure-holder's family. As such the land held by the minor sons, minor unmarried daughters and the spouse is to be clubbed with the land of the tenure-holder for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the tenure-holder. Thus in proceedings for determination of ceiling area a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder has no independent status as a tenure-holder. Her land is, therefore, clubbed with the land of her husband. The same is the position of a minor son and minor unmarried daughter whose father or mother is a tenure-holder. Therefore, where a husband and wife both are holders of a holding they together constitute one unit of tenure-holder. In this context the prohibition contained in sub-section (8) of Section 5 will apply also to a sale effected by a woman whose husband is also a tenure-holder. If the woman whose husband was a tenure-holder had not been excluded from the definition of tenure-holder under clause (17) of Section 3 the consequence would have been that under sub-section (3) of Section 5 her land could not have been clubbed with the land of her husband and being an independent tenure-holder her own land would also have been subjected to determination of ceiling and surplus areas. It is to avoid this situation that a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder has been excluded from the definition of the term 'tenure-holder' given in the Act. We accordingly do not accept the contention of Sri S. P. Gupta that sub-section (8) of Section 5 does not apply to a sale effected by a woman. It is to avoid this situation that a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder has been excluded from the definition of the term 'tenure-holder' given in the Act. We accordingly do not accept the contention of Sri S. P. Gupta that sub-section (8) of Section 5 does not apply to a sale effected by a woman. The learned counsel further contended that sub-section (8) was added to Section 5 of the Act through U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1976 (U. P. Act No.20 of 1976) with effect from 10-10-1975 and therefore its provisions could not be invoked for invalidating the transfers effected prior thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amending Act says that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on October 10, 1975. Sub-section (8) was added through clause (d) of Section 6 of the Amending Act which is as follows :- "(d) After sub-section (7), the following sub-section shall be inserted,:- (g) ............" FROM the above provisions it is apparent that the retroactivity given to subsection (8) does not go beyond 10-10-1975. Another amendment was made through clause (a) of Section 6. With regard to this amendment it has been specifically provided by clause (a) that the same shall be deemed to have been substituted from January 17, 1975. However no date earlier than 10th October 1975 has been provided in the Act for the addition of sub-section (8). Sri Gupta is therefore justified in saying that the transfers effected prior to 10-10-1975 will not be hit by sub-section (8) of Section 5. After having examined the legal position we now proceed to consider the individual writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 138 of 1980- 17. IN the above discussion we have referred to the broad criteria which may be adopted for considering a transfer to be in good faith for the purposes of proviso (b). The said discussion contains answer to question no. 2 formulated by the learned Single Judge. 18. QUESTION no. 1 in the form formulated by the learned Single Judge presupposes that the impugned sale deeds had been executed in anticipation of the amendments which were proposed to be made in the Ceiling Act. There is no material on record to indicate that the proposed amendments had already been published before the sale deeds were executed. 18. QUESTION no. 1 in the form formulated by the learned Single Judge presupposes that the impugned sale deeds had been executed in anticipation of the amendments which were proposed to be made in the Ceiling Act. There is no material on record to indicate that the proposed amendments had already been published before the sale deeds were executed. On the facts of the present case the question does not arise and is therefore not answered. So far as questions of pressing necessity and conversion of land into cash are concerned we have made our observations hereinabove. Writ Petition No, 3113 of 1971- In this case the sale deed was executed by Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the tenure holder, Kunwar Birendra Singh on 29-1-1974. The appellate authority has recorded a positive finding to the affect that the transaction of sale was a bona fide one and was for adequate consideration. It was effected through a written document which was duly registered. There is nothing to indicate that the sale was for the immediate or deferred benefit of Smt. Kamla Devi or the members of her family. In these circumstances the land covered by the sale deed was, in view of the legal position discussed above, liable to be excluded from consideration while determining the ceiling and surplus areas of Kunwar Birendra Singh, petitioner no. 1. All the ingredients of Proviso (b) to Section 5(6) were present in this case and sub-section (8) was inapplicable. In this view of the matter the land convered by the sale deed should not have been included by the ceiling authorities in the holding of the petitioners. The' appellate authority committed manifest error in including the area covered by the sale deed in the holding of the petitioners. 19. THE petitioners' grievance that after holding plot no. 324 to be unirrigated the appellate authority has omitted to grant relief to the petitioners on that basis also, appears to be correct. 20. THE third grievance raised in this case was that the appellate authority committed manifest error in not holding plots numbered 377, 378 and 403 as grove or forest, although they were proved to be so from the same document on the basis of which plot no. 324 was held to be unirrigated. THE order of the appellate authority does not indicate whether this question was raised before it. 324 was held to be unirrigated. THE order of the appellate authority does not indicate whether this question was raised before it. However since in view of our finding in respect of the two questions mentioned above the case will have to go back for re-determination of the surplus area, the appellate authority shall consider this grievance also. Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1976- In this case the transfer of land was made by Smt. Kanti Devi Agarwal, wife of the tenure-holder Om Prakash Agarwal by sale deed executed on 12-2-1974. This sale deed was held to be void in view of the provision contained in sub-section (8) of Section 5. This provision was inapplicable as the transfer was effected prior to introduction of the sub-section in the Act. Since the transfer was effected after 24-1-1971, the date mentioned in sub-section (6), its reliability or validity had to be judged with reference to the said sub-section. This not having been done the case will have to go back to the appellate authority. 21. IN respect of certain plots it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were used for purposes of brick-kiln and were not agricultural plots and could not therefore be included in the holding of the petitioners. For claiming this exemption reliance was placed on Section 6 (1) (a) which provides as follows :- "6 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure-holder, namely- (a) land used for an industrial purpose (that is to say, for purposes of manufacture, preservation, storage or processing of goods), and in respect of which a declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, subists ;99 22. THE appellate authority did not grant the exemption on the ground that there was no declaration in respect of the land in question under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. THE appellate authority did not grant the exemption on the ground that there was no declaration in respect of the land in question under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under the provision reproduced above a land will not be deemed to be land for the purposes of the Act if two conditions are fulfilled; first, that the land is used for industrial purpose, and second, there subsists in respect of such land a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the present case the petitioners did not place on record any declaration referred to in clause (a). Of course, it was urged that the land was used for industrial purpose because it was being used as brick-kiln. Similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Mangal Singh v. Civil Judge, Civil Misc. Writ no. 1037 of 1976. In this case it was held that in order to avail of the benefit of clause (a) of Section 6(1) two conditions have to co-exist and if one of the two conditions is wanting the benefit of the clause cannot be availed of. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in this case. THE view taken by the appellate authority is also in accord with the view expressed in Sheo Mangal Singh's case (supra). THE judgment of the appellate authority therefore cannot be said to be erroneous so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. ORDER In view of the above writ petitions nos. 3113 of 1979 and 2931 of 1976 are allowed and the orders of the appellate authorities in each case are hereby quashed. The said authorities will re-admit the appeals to their original numbers and decide the same afresh in accordance with law taking into account the observations made hereinabove. The cost of the petitions shall be easy. 23. THE papers of writ petition no. 138 of 1980 shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge with our answers for necessary orders. Ordered accordingly.