ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - These petitions are connected and they can be disposed of by one common judgment. The facts, in brief, are these : 2. One Bhal Chandra died in 1976 and he left two widows Smt. Kapoor Wati and Smt. Subha Wati. They become co-tenure holders to the extent of the share each in the agricultural lands left by the deceased Bhal Chandra. In the ceiling proceedings separate notices were sent to each of the said two co widows and each of them filed objections. Ceiling case No. 136 of 1974 was in respect of Smt. Subha Wati and ceiling case No. 137 of 1974 was in respect of the other widow, namely Smt. Kapoor Wati. It seems that the prescribed Authority decided both the cases on 12-8-75. Thereafter both the ladies filed appeals and they were decided by the appellate court. Smt. Subha Wati filed writ petition No. 3708 of 1977 against the judgment of the appellate court but the said petition was dismissed by this Court in limine on 22-2-78. The appeal filed by Smt. Kapoor Wati was allowed by the appellate court on 20-10-78 and a true copy of the said order is annexure 7 to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 683 of 1979. Against the said judgment of the appellate court dated 20-10-78 the State has come up in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 683 of 1979. 3. One Gulab Chandra had also filed his objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter he filed an appeal which was allowed by the appellate court on 9-4-80. A true copy of the appellate court's judgment is annexure 9 to the other writ petition No. 5985 of 1980. The State has come up in the said writ petition No. 5985 of 1980 against the said appellate judgment dated 9-4-80. 4. The point involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, namely that the appellate court was wrong in accepting the compromise decree dated 25-7-72, which was passed in the consolidation proceedings. By the said compromise decree ?th share in the lands left by Bhal Chandra was declared to be that of Gulab Chandra and each of the two co-widows was declared entitled to 1/12th share in the said lands. This compromise decree was wrongly accepted by the appellate court, according to the learned Standing Counsel. By the said compromise decree ?th share in the lands left by Bhal Chandra was declared to be that of Gulab Chandra and each of the two co-widows was declared entitled to 1/12th share in the said lands. This compromise decree was wrongly accepted by the appellate court, according to the learned Standing Counsel. In my view, this contention is correct. It should be seen that Section 5 (6) of the Act clearly lays down that in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any transfer of land made after the 24th day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. Thereafter there is a proviso and after the proviso there is Explanation I which gives an extended meaning to the expression `transfer' for the purpose of Section 5 (6) of the Act. Cl. (a) of the said Explanation clearly lays down that transfer will include a declaration of a person as a co-tenure-holder, made after the 24th day of January, 1971 in a suit or proceeding irrespective of whether such suit or proceeding was pending on or was instituted after the 24th day of January, 1971. It should be seen that the proviso to Section 5 (6) will not apply to such transfers as are covered by Explanation 1. Cl. (a) of the proviso is obviously not attracted because there is no question of a transfer in favour of a person referred to in Section 5 (2). That is not the position here. So far as cl. (b) is concerned, the Division Bench in Fateh Mohammad v. District Judge, (1979 All. W C 41) has clearly laid down that benefit of cl. (b) is extended to such transfers which are made in good faith and for adequate monetary consideration. That is not the position here. Therefore, in my view, the Prescribed Authority was bound to ignore the said compromise decree dated 25-7-72, which was passed in the consolidation proceedings. 5. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the appellate judgment dated 20-10-78 (annexure 7 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 683 of 1979) and the appellate judgment dated 9-4-80 (annexure 9 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5985 of 1980) are hereby quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.