JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. It seems that proceedings against Ram Dularey, the natural father of the petitioner, took place and the land of the petitioner was also clubbed, which proceedings against the petitioner were later on dropped. During the continuance of the proceedings, the petitioner, in the year 1978, transferred his land in favour of another person. Subsequently, proceedings against the petitioner started. The petitioner filed an objection claiming the benefit of the transfer which was made by him in the year 1978. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority rejected the contention which was raised by the petitioner. The appellate authority was of the view that in view of section 5 (1) (8) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the petitioner was not entitled X to get the benefit of the said transfer, as transfer took place during the subsistence of proceedings. Section 5 (1) (8) of the said Act reads as under: ''S.5 (1)(8): Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) and (7), no tenureholder shall transfer any land held by him during the continuance of the proceedings for determination of surplus land and in relation to such tenureholder and every transfer made in contravention of this section shall be void. The word 'tenureholder' has been defined in sections (17) of the Act and reads as under: Tenureholder means a person who is the holder of a holding but does not include (a) a woman whose husband is a tenureholder; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenureholder. 2. In section 5 (1) (8) of the Act, the emphasis is on the words 'such tenureholder'. The earlier proceedings were, against Ram Dularey and not the petitioner, who ceased to be his son after adoption. Merely because proceedings took place against Ram Dularey and the petitioner was given notice of the same, that could not be taken to mean that proceedings were against tenureholder. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of transfer and the District Judge committed a manifest error of law in not excluding the said land. 3. It w s next contended that plot no. 518 was part of plot no. 517 which was unirrigated, yet the appellate court has taken the entire plot as irrigated. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of transfer and the District Judge committed a manifest error of law in not excluding the said land. 3. It w s next contended that plot no. 518 was part of plot no. 517 which was unirrigated, yet the appellate court has taken the entire plot as irrigated. Learned counsel made reference to the case Kallu v. State (1979 ALJ 1113). While interpreting subcl. (a) of section 4A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act it was observed that if irrigation facilities of the nature mentioned in subcl. (a) of cl. firstly' of S. 4A are available only to a part of the total area of which a plot is comprised, it cannot be held that irrigation facilities were available for the entire plot, meaning thereby that other plot is not unirrigated. The appellate court has not considered section 4A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings, Act in correct perspective and the order passed by the II Additional District Judge cannot be sustained. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18.8.81 (Annexure2) passed by the Additional District Judge is quashed and he is.directed to restore the appeal to its original number and hear and decide the same in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)