ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of this. The petitioner was treated as the tenure holder and a notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act was issued. He filed objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 27-3-1976, a true copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 31-5-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 3. The learned counsel contended that the sale-deed dated 1-4-1972 executed by the wife of the petitioner should have been accepted and should not have been ignored. It is obvious that this controversy was not considered by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate court with reference to the provisions contained in Cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 5 (6) of the Act. It is true that the transfers after 24-1-1971 are bound to be ignored under S. 5 (6) of the Act but in view of the cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 5 (6) of the Act, such transfers, which are 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 for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family, have to be accepted. From the impugned orders, it is obvious that neither the Prescribed Authority nor the appellate court took into consideration cl. (b) of the proviso and thought that the sale deed was bound to be ignored in law without any exception whatsoever. This view is undoubtedly erroneous. From the order of the appellate court, it seems that a contention was raised before the said court that S. 5 (6) of the Act is confined only to transfers effected by a tenure-holder and not by his wife. This contention was rightly repelled by the appellate court, and in this connection, a reference may be made to the pronouncement of this Court reported in Attar Singh v. State, (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. This contention was rightly repelled by the appellate court, and in this connection, a reference may be made to the pronouncement of this Court reported in Attar Singh v. State, (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 2768 of 1978 decided on 28-1-1980) and Trilok Singh v. State (1978 All LJ 1343). However, the appellate court was wrong in not adverting to clause (b) of the proviso to S. 5 (6) of the Act while deciding, the said controversy. 4. This petition is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the appellate court dated 31-5-1978 (Annexure 5) and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27-3-1976 ( Annexure 3) to the petition are hereby quashed so far as the controversy about the aforesaid sale deed dated 1-4-1972 is concerned. The Prescribed Authority is directed to reconsider the sale deed in the light of the provisions contained in clause (b) of the proviso to S. 5 (6) of the Act, on the basis of the material and evidence on the record. No other controversy shall be allowed to be raised before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate court in case an appeal is filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority to be passed hereafter. The surplus land shall be redetermined in the light of the fresh decision of the authorities below in respect of the said controversy. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to the costs.