JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1975. Appellant filed a return showing that he had no ceiling surplus land. He transferred both by sale or gift various parts of his land on various dates both prior and subsequent to the appointed date. From this 60 decimals of land are encroached by some body and are not in bis possession. 2. Shri C.V. Murty, Advocate appearing for the appellant argues that no notice was served on him as prescribed. No notice was also given to those who purchased the land from him. He argues that the Competent Authority did not take into consideration the transfers made before 1975. He further argues that appellant had two major sons. The dates of their birth as per statement filed by appellant was 7-4-1952 and 15-2-1964 respectively. One was definitely major in 1976. He filed an affidavit on 6th November, 1978 saying that the second son was major before 1975 and therefore he is entitled to 3 units. Taking 3 units into consideration, he argues that there is no surplus. 3. Additional Standing Counsel argues that in the statement the total land was given at 2.546 acres. On verification it was Ac.2.752-5 Kadi. Draft Statement was served on the appellant by registered post on 21-5-1981. No objection was filed. Therefore, it was made final on 18-10-1981 on 19-10-1982 notice to hand over vacant possession was issued which was served on 20-10-1982. The appellant was silent from May 1980 after receiving first notice Appeal has been filed after lends vested in Government. 4. He points out that appellant is entitled to 0.779 acres as built up area 0.125 acre as appurtenant area and 0.125 acre as additional appurtenant area, totalling 1.029 acres. Balance 1.723 acres is surplus. 5. According to Additional Standing Counsel transfers were made by the appellant in contravention of law. He says that the affidavit saying that the second son was major before the appointed day is false. 6. Postal authorities certify that the registered notice was served on appellant on 21-5-1981. Presumption in law according to Additional Standing Counsel, is that the appellant has received it. He has to file objection. I agree with Additional Standing Counsel on this. Responsibility to file objection is squarely on appellant. 7. 6. Postal authorities certify that the registered notice was served on appellant on 21-5-1981. Presumption in law according to Additional Standing Counsel, is that the appellant has received it. He has to file objection. I agree with Additional Standing Counsel on this. Responsibility to file objection is squarely on appellant. 7. Section 10(4) and 5(3) of the Act prohibits transfer of land after the appointed date. I obtained details of transfers made after and before this date. Whatever transactions were made before the appointed date cannot be questioned. They must be considered valid. But all the sales made subsequent to the appointed date are not valid under this Act. 8. Appellant has already said that the second son was born in 1964 in his own statement. He cannot now change it to 1954. However Competent Authority can send for the second son and see him personally and judge from the School and College Certificates what was given. He received notice by registered post. 9. I would, therefore, remand the case to the Competent Authority to exclude sales made before the appointed day and include all sales made after 17-2-1976 while determining excess vacant land. Age of second son may also be determined as explained above. 10. Case remanded.