A. BANERJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an oider passed by the District Judge, Rampur in a ceiling appeal by the State of u. P. against the present petitioners decided on 9. 6. 1981. White allowing the appeal the learned District Judge held that the society held no surplus land but Sri Rana Pratap Singh held 133. 33 acres irrigated land as surplus and it was declared as such. The petitioners challenged in this writ petition the above order and it was contended that the order is patently erroneous and is liable to be quashed. ( 2 ) IT will be necessary to state briefly the relevant facts and then notice the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the reply of the learned counsel for the respondent First, the facts : a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the petitioner No. 1 Model Co-operative Farming Society to show cause why 179. 77 or 181. 66 acres of the land be declared as surplus. The society had a total of 204. 97 acres and since it could retain only 18. 02 acres as ceiling limit plus 4 acres as abadi land, consequently the remaining area was liable to be declared as surplus Objection was filed by the society that it had 20 members and as such the Society had no surplus land. It was also pleaded that notice had not been given to individual members of the society under Section 10 (2) of the Act and as such the notice was liable to be discharged. The Prescribed authority rejected the objections and declared 131. 35 acres of land as surplus. An appeal was filed by the State before the district Judge, Ratnpur and that the appeal was dismissed on 25. 11. 1975. The society filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Athority as well as of the Appellate Authority were set aside and the prescribed Authority was directed to decide the claim of the society afresh after serving notice to the members of the society who had contributed their land to it in accordance with law. Thereafter a fresh notice was given to Rana Pratap Singh, one of the members of the society, petitioner No. 2, who had contributed a major portion of the land to the society. In this notice it was proposed that the petitioner No. 2 had 133. 33 acres as surplus land. The latter filed an objection claiming that the society was registered in the year 1959 and the share of each members in the land held by the society was equal, the name of the society was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1959 and the members who contributed land to the society had lost their rights in the land and the society alone had become the land holder. It was also pleaded that in 8 acres of land there was abadi and the entire land was unirrigated and the notice to the petitioner No. 2 was beyond prescribed time. The Prescribed authority in its decision held that the entire land was possessed by the society and it had no surplus land. The Prescribed authority held that the society possessed 204. 97 acres of land and since there were 19 members and share of each member was 10. 97 acres which was below the prescribed limit and as such none of the members possessed surplus area. Abadi lay only in 3 acres of land. The notice to petitioner No. 2 was accordingly discharged. Thereupon the State filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It was contended on behalf of the State that in view of the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the act the land for the purposes of the Act would be deemed to belong to the members who contributed the land. The contributors would remain the tenureholders even if a farming society had been formed much earlier. This view was upheld by the district Judge by his order dated 9-6-1981. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the farming society having been formed in the year 1959, much before the advent of the Act in 1960. This view was upheld by the district Judge by his order dated 9-6-1981. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the farming society having been formed in the year 1959, much before the advent of the Act in 1960. and the land having been entered in the revenue records in the name of the society, it could not he held that the land belonged to the tenureholder or continued to be held by the tenureholder and as such the notice to petitioner No. 2 was manifestly erroneous. It was liable to be discharged. His second contention was that Section 5 (4) of the present Act was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The notice was rightly given to the society which held the land as tenureholder and the petitioner No. 2 was not a tenureholder. Hence, section 5 (1) was also inapplicable. Thirdly, the finding that the society was not a tenureholder was manifestly erroneous and lastly it was urged that the law on the point has been wrongly understood by the Appellate authority. ( 4 ) FOURTHLY, the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 had no application to the facts of the case, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Z. A. Act), 1961 were attracted in the case. ( 5 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel, however, argued that even though a co-operative Farming Society had been formed in the year 1959 the land of the tenureholders did not vest in the society but continued to remain with the tenureholders. Consequently the society did not become the tenure-holders. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 308 of the Z. A act and to Rule 318 of the rules made under the said Act. Learned standing Counsel also argued that (he petitioner No. 2 had contributed most of the land and the notice under Section 5 (4) of the Act, he would be deemed to be the tenureholder of the laud contributed by him to the society. Since he held land in excess of 18. 04 acres the appellate authority was justified in declaring that there was a surplus land as far as petitioner No. 2 was concerned. 133. Since he held land in excess of 18. 04 acres the appellate authority was justified in declaring that there was a surplus land as far as petitioner No. 2 was concerned. 133. 33 acres of irrigated land had rightly been declared as surplus. Learned Standing Counsel also Contended that the question whether there was a complete transfer of interest by the various tenureholders Could be ascertained from the original agreement and the bye-laws of the Society and since this had not been produced U was not passible to conclude that there was an actual transfer if the land to the Co-operative Society, ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record it seems to me that the main question to be determined in this case is whether the petitioner No. 1 was the tenureholder of the land or the petitioner No. 2 would be deemed to be a tenureholder. If the petitioner No. 2 was held to be the tenureholder of the land notwithstanding the formation of the Society, the order of the appellate authority will have to be upheld but if it is found that the transfer in favour of the Society was complete and the Society had become the tenureholder, in that event the order of the appellate authority will have to be set aside. ( 7 ) IT will, therefore, be necessary to examine the record of the writ petition and find out what is the exact position. A notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act was issued and served on the petitioners. An objection was filed on their behalf, copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It was stated therein that the Society was registered in 1959 and by a resolution dated 25th April, 1959 the Society acquired the holdings of petitioner No 2 and other members and the share of each member was equal and the land belonged to the Society. Further, the land of each tenure-holder including petitioner No 2 had been transferred to the Society and had been duly recorded in the revenue records since 1959. The land so contributed by the members became the sole property of the Society and the latter became the sole tenure-holder. This situation has continued ever since. Further, the land of each tenure-holder including petitioner No 2 had been transferred to the Society and had been duly recorded in the revenue records since 1959. The land so contributed by the members became the sole property of the Society and the latter became the sole tenure-holder. This situation has continued ever since. The rights of the members had extinguished by the continuous possession of the Society for more than 20 years. The petitioners filed receipt for the discharge of the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The petitioners also filed a copy of the genera] meeting held on 25th April, 1959 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition)which contained a resolution, viz. ,"unanimously resolved that all the land pooled by the members be given to the Society and the members undertake to pay or adjust their value amongst themselves to make the land share equal in the society. "these facts have been stated in the writ petition itself in paragraphs 4 and 5. In paragraph 4 it was stated that the Society was registered on the 31st march, 1959 and the registration No, was 654 of the said Society. Paragraph 5 referred to Annexure 3. The statements of the Supervisor qanungo and Lekhpal were made Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. They stated that the entire land involved was recorded in the name of the society from prior to 1363 F. The proposal to declare 133. 33 acres of laud is surplus was made on the basis of earlier revenue records. in Annexure 5 it was stated that the land was under the possession and cultivation of the society. All the members had given their land to the Society and they jointly cultivated the land. It was further__4ated by the Lekbpal that the name of petitioner No. 2 Rana Pratap Singh was not entered in any Khasra or khatauni. It was also stated that it was not disclosed in the Khatauni as to what was the share of each member of the Society. The objection vas considered by the Prescribed Authority who by his order dated 8-9-1980 held that the entire land belonged to the Society and not to any individual member thereof. It was also stated that it was not disclosed in the Khatauni as to what was the share of each member of the Society. The objection vas considered by the Prescribed Authority who by his order dated 8-9-1980 held that the entire land belonged to the Society and not to any individual member thereof. In the counter-affidavit that has been filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents it is stated in paragraph 4 that Sri Madan Chand verma in his statement bad not slated anything about the registration number a ad the date of the registration of tfee Society. la respect of paragraph 5 the reply was that the resolution passed by the Society on the 24th May, 1979 was produced before the Prescribed Authority on 5-11-1979. It is evident from the above that the date of the registration and the registration number have not been denied on behalf of the respondents. The fact that a resolution dated 25th April, 1969 was passed is admitted. It is, therefore, clear that the Society was formed in 1959, i. e. prior to the coming in force of the Act. ( 8 ) IT is also apparent from the above that the registration of the Society took place long before the commencement of the U. P. Co-operative Societies act, 1965. As matter of fact the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reformss Act 1951 introduced the concept of the Co-operative Farming Society and entire chapter was devoted for engaging people to jointly cultivate by forming Co-operative farming Societies. Not only tenure holders owning uneconomic holdings but also persons holding substantial agricultural land could become members of such a Society. Reference to Sections 77 and 78 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 was made during the arguments. Section 79 provides that as a consequence of the registration of a Co-operative farming Society the land held by a member shall be deemed to have passed into "the possession, control and management of the Co-operative Farming society which shall thereupon hold such land in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and may use the same for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 77". Emphasis was laid on this provision by the learned Standing Counsel who urged that the Co-operative farming Society only held the land for purposes of possession, control and management and not as owner. Emphasis was laid on this provision by the learned Standing Counsel who urged that the Co-operative farming Society only held the land for purposes of possession, control and management and not as owner. This provision in 1965 Act is not retrospective in operation. The 1%5 Act came into effect from 28th January, 1968. Thus the provision of Section 79 of the 1965 Act could have no application in the present case. It may be recalled that the Society was formed and registered in the instant case in 1959. The name of the Society was mutated in the revenue record. The members passed a resolution which showed that they had equal shares in the total holding by the Society. Prima facie, therefore, the Society held the land as owner or to put in other words as tenure-holder for, the name of the Society was entered in the Khatauni as well as in the Khasra. The name of petitioner No 2 or any other member of the Society was not entered in the Kbatauni or Khasra ( 9 ) WHAT is now sought to be argued by the Standing Counsel is that notwithstanding the registration, and mutation in 1959 and the continuous entry of the Society in the Khatauni as the tenure-holder the land would be deemed to be of individual members of the Society and that it would be in accordance with their contribution to the Society. In support of this contention learned standing Counsel referred to Section 308 of the Z. A. Act, 1951 which reads as follows :"section 308. Land contributed to the farm to continue to vest in the bhumidhar OF sirdar thereof. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to mean that the interest of a bhumidhar or sirdar in the land contributed to the co-operative farm by or on his behalf has ceased to vest in him. " ( 10 ) IT was argued on this basis that even if the Co-operative Farming society was formed on the basis of the provision in the Z. A. Act, 1951, the interest of bhumidhar and the sirdar in the land contributed by them would continue to vest in them. Reference was also made to Section 309 which provided for the disposition of such land by the member of the Society either by a testamentary document or with the permission of the Society. Reference was also made to Section 309 which provided for the disposition of such land by the member of the Society either by a testamentary document or with the permission of the Society. The very fact, learned Standing Counsel argued that the bhumidhar or the sirdar member could transfer his land which he bad contributed to the Society shows that he remained the owner and not the Society. ( 11 ) THIS argument is not acceptable to me. Section 308 cannot be read in isolation. A perusal of Section 298 of the Z. A. Act, 1951 shows that land held by a member was to be transferred to the farm. The relevant words in Section 298 read "for so long as the registration of the co-operative farm is not cancelled, be deemed to be transferred to and held by the co-operative farm which shall thereupon hold such land in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. . . . . . " Section 298 speaks of a transfer. A transfer contemplates a change of ownership. This provision was enacted to facilitate the formation of Co-operative Farming Society and a regular document of transfer by sale was not necessaiy. li the bhumidhar or the sirdar transferred his land to a co-operative society, the land would go to the society and the contributors would become the members of the society. Normally their shares would be equivalent to the contribution made by them but where the parties agree upon and resolve that their shares would be different they were entitled to do so. Section 308, therefore, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with Section 298. So long as the registration of a co-operative farm is not cancelled the land would be deemed to be transferred to and held by a co-operative society. This position is not altered by the provisions of Section 308. The remaining provisions of the Chapter make clear that although it is within the competence of member to dispose of his share but there are certain conditions imposed. He cannot dispose of his share or withdraw it from the society. The society may or may not permit him or may permit him under certain conditions. Specifically there is provision for paying him compensation in lieu of his share. He cannot dispose of his share or withdraw it from the society. The society may or may not permit him or may permit him under certain conditions. Specifically there is provision for paying him compensation in lieu of his share. There is also provision for transferring his share to another person becoming the member of the society in his place. It is, therefore, obvious from the above that the land once contributed to the co-operative society would be of the co-operative society and cannot be withdrawan by any of the members unless permitted by the society. In this view of the matter it is plausible to hold that the land once transferred to the society remains of the society and not of the individual members who contribute land to the society. This would be the position prior to the coming in force of the U. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1965. The position would, however, be different after the coming in force of the latter Act. Reference may now be made to the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the Act this provision reads :"where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society or other society or asso iation of persons (whether incorporated or not, but not including a public company), its members (whether called partners, shareholders or by any other name shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in proportion to their respective shares in that 8rm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons. ""provided that where a person immediately before his admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or association of persons, held no land or an area of land less than the aiea proportionate to bis aforsaid share then he shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be, only the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining area of the holding, as the case may be shall be deemed to be held by the remaining members in proportion to their respective shares in the firm, cooperative society, or other society or association of persons. " ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the above provision the holding of farming society will be deemed to be the holding of its members in proportion to their respective shares in that society. " ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the above provision the holding of farming society will be deemed to be the holding of its members in proportion to their respective shares in that society. Whether the members are called partners, shareholders or by any other name would not make any difference. Treating such persons who contribute land to the instant society would be the members of the society. They would be deemed to be holding land equivalent to their contribution according to the shares in the society. It was sought to be argued that their shares would be equivalent to the area of the land contributed by them to the society in relation to the total land held by the society. This concept of the extent of their share holding would be" appropriate provided there was nothing to show that the share holding of each member was not based on their contribution but on some other basis. In the present case the evidence on the record shows that the share holding of each member, notwithstanding the extent of their contribution, was held to be equal. There were 19 members and the total land contributed by them was 20. 97 acres. The share of each member would, therefore, be equivalent to 10. 79 acres. If this was the correct approach, then according to Section 5 (4)the share held by each member would be equivalent to an area of 10. 79 acres which would be less than the ceiling area of 18. 04 acres. ( 13 ) THE Prescribed Authority proceeded on this line and held that there was no surplus land with any member and in particular petitioner no. 2. The appellate authority, however, took the view that the share holding of each member was in accordance with the contribution made by him to the society initially. In this context it held that Rana Pratap Singh had contributed 151 acres of land and, therefore, 133 acies of land was surplus with him. The view, in my opinion, is not in accordance with law. In this context it held that Rana Pratap Singh had contributed 151 acres of land and, therefore, 133 acies of land was surplus with him. The view, in my opinion, is not in accordance with law. If the co-operative society was formed to encourage large and small holding of agricultural land to merge their land for a joint and co-operative farming the provisions of the enactment would be lost if it were to be held that subsequently the contribution by each member would be scrutinised for the purpose of finding out whether he had any surplus land. In that event the co-operative society would cease to exist or would become so truncated that it may not be able to function at all. Bat I am not called upon to decide this matter on the above basis. The point in issue before me is whether the land which had been contributed by the members was to be deemed to be theirs in spite of the transfer of the said land in favour of a society who was the recorded tenure holder. Once the society became a tenure holder the society held the land. Under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Z. A. Act, 1951 certain rights of the members was provided but chose rights did not militate against the provisions of Section 298 which provided for the transfer of the land in favour of the society. The land having been transferred to the society, the latter became its tenure holder. The members only became shareholders. The extent of their share holding would depend upon their contribution but in the present case there is material on the record to show that the share of each member was equal notwithstanding the difference in the quantum ot land contributed by them. Once it is held that their shares were equal, then for the purposes of Section 5 (4) their shares will have to be adjudged on the basis of their shareholding and not the basis of what they had initially contributed. It is, therefore, apparent from the above that the value of each share in the present case translated into acres would be equivalent to 10. 79 acres. This area is undisputedly less than the ceiling area of 18 04 acres. In this view of the matter the holding by each member including petitioner No. 2 would be 10. 79 acres. It is, therefore, apparent from the above that the value of each share in the present case translated into acres would be equivalent to 10. 79 acres. This area is undisputedly less than the ceiling area of 18 04 acres. In this view of the matter the holding by each member including petitioner No. 2 would be 10. 79 acres. Thus the holding of petitioner No. 2 even for the purposes of Section 5 (4) of the Act would be 10. 79 acres which is much below the ceiling land of 18. 04 acres. Consequently, it must be held that the holding of petitioner No. 2 and other shareholders was less than the ceiling land and it must also be held that there was no surplus land with any of the shareholders. In this view of the matter the view taken by the appellate authority that Rana Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 2 had 133. 33 acres irrigated land as surplus is manifestly erroneous in law and has to be quashed. The view taken by the Prescribed Authority in the present case is correct and in accordance with law. ( 14 ) IN the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the District Judge dated 9-6-1981 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed. .