ORDER M. P. Mehrotra, J. - These three connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against common orders passed in the ceiling proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960, and, therefore, they can be disposed of by one common judgment. 2. The brief facts are these. One Murari Lal was treated as the tenure holder and the notice under S. 10(2) of the Act was issued to him. Objections were filed by him and it seems that his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, his daughters Brijeshwari and Sheela also filed objections. The Prescribed Authority disposed of these objections by his order dated 28-2-78, a true copy of which is annexure 11 to writ petition No. 904 of 1979, Murari Lal v. District Judge and others. 3. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority, four appeals were filed, the details whereof are as under (i) Revenue Appeal No. 10 of 1978 by Sri Murarilal, the said tenure holder. (ii) Revenue Appeal No. 11 of 78 by Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of the said tenure holder. (iii) Revenue Appeal No. 12 of 78 by Brijeshwari Paliwal, daughter of Murarilal (iv) Revenue Appeal No. 13 of 1978 by Sheela Devi, another daughter of Murarilal. 4. The appellate court disposed of the appeals by the following operative order, contained in its judgment dated 28-10-78 : "Appeal Nos. 12 of 1978 and 13 of 1978 are allowed. The land measuring 20.91 acres belonging to Km. Brijeshwari Devi and Km. Sheela is to be excluded from being taken into consideration for purposes of determining the ceiling area of Murari Lal. Appeal No. 11 of 1978 Of Smt. Shanti Devi is dismissed with costs to the respondent. Appeal No. 10 of 1978 of Murarilal is partly allowed. The ceiling area of Murari Lal will be determined after excluding the land measuring 20.91 acres belonging to Km. Brijeshwari Devi and Knm. Sheela. After excluding land, land measuring 17.55 acres is declared surplus instead of 38.46 acres. The area of this land will be taken out of the land standing in the name of Murarilal. Appellants Murarilal, Km. Brijeshwari Devi, and Km. Sheela will bear their own costs of their respective appeals. Let copies of this judgment be placed on the record of Revenue Appeals Nos. 11 of 1978, 12 of 1978 and 13 of 1978." 5. The area of this land will be taken out of the land standing in the name of Murarilal. Appellants Murarilal, Km. Brijeshwari Devi, and Km. Sheela will bear their own costs of their respective appeals. Let copies of this judgment be placed on the record of Revenue Appeals Nos. 11 of 1978, 12 of 1978 and 13 of 1978." 5. Against the said appellate judgment, these three connected writ petitions have been filed and the details thereof are as under : (i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 787 of 1979 (by the State of U.P.) (ii) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 904 of 1979 (by the said Sri Murarilal, tenure holder) (iii) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 947 of 1979 (By Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of the said Sri Murari Lal tenure holder). 6. In' support and opposition of these petitions, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and Sri B. Dixit, who has appeared on behalf of the said tenure holder. Sri Murarilal and his aforementioned wife Smt. Shanti Devi. 7. So far as the State's writ petition is concerned, namely Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 787 of 1979, two points are involved in the same. Firstly, it has been contended that the appellate court was wrong in allowing the appeal of Km. Brijeshwari Devi, secondly. it has been claimed that the appeal of Km. Sheela was also wrongly allowed by the appellate court. The appellate court in para 10 of its judgment (Annexure 2 to the writ petition of the State, No. 787 of 1979) observed as under : "As regards the appeal of Km. Brijeshwari Devi Paliwal, I am of the view that the learned Prescribed Authority committed an error in taking into consideration the land standing in her name, because she was not a family member of Murarilal in view of the definition of 'family' cited above. Major daughters do not come within the definition of 'family' of a tenure holder. As Km. 'Brijeshwari Devi Paliwal was admittedly a major daughter of Murari Lal on 7-8-76, the land standing in her name, could not have been tagged with the land of her father Murari Lal for purposes of determining the ceiling area of Murarilal. The prescribed Authority included 10.82 acres irrigated land in the land of Murarilal for purposes of determining the ceiling area. This area of 10.82 acres has to be excluded. The prescribed Authority included 10.82 acres irrigated land in the land of Murarilal for purposes of determining the ceiling area. This area of 10.82 acres has to be excluded. Thus the appeal of Km. Brijeshwari Devi has to be allowed." 8. The learned standing counsel contended that the relevant date for deciding whether Km. Brijeshwari Devi was a minor or a major daughter of Murari Lal, was 8-6-1973 and not 7-8-1976 as held by the appellate court in the aforesaid extract of the judgment of the appellate court. This contention is correct. The relevant date for determining who constituted the family of the tenure holder under S. 5(3) of the Act, would be 8-6-1973 when S. 5(1) of the Act as amended by the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act. 1972 (U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973) came into force. 9. So far as the appeal of Km. Sheela was concerned, the appellate court allowed the same on the ground that her land was sold on her behalf on 25-6-1973 and on 7-8-1976 (which, according to the appellate court, was the relevant date for determining the ceiling area) Km. Sheela was not holding the land which had been earlier sold on her behalf. Therefore, according to the appellate court, the said land which had been earlier sold, could not be included in the holding of her father Murari Lal. The appellate court in its judgment observed "Hence, in my opinion, the land sold by Km. Sheela which was not a land standing in her name on 7-8-76, could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area of Murari Lal." 10. The learned standing counsel attacked this finding and contended that the relevant date for determining whether any land held by the minor daughter of the tenure holder in the latter's holding, was 8-6-1973 and not 7-8-1976, as wrongly held by the appellate court. In my view, this contention is again correct. The appellate court should have decided the controversy with reference to the position as it stood on 8-6-1973. However, it has to be seen that the sale in question of Km. Sheela's land was effected on 25-6-1973. In view of the Division Bench pronouncement reported in Om Prakash Agarwal v. Ist Addl. District & Sessions Judge, 1981 All WC 775. The appellate court should have decided the controversy with reference to the position as it stood on 8-6-1973. However, it has to be seen that the sale in question of Km. Sheela's land was effected on 25-6-1973. In view of the Division Bench pronouncement reported in Om Prakash Agarwal v. Ist Addl. District & Sessions Judge, 1981 All WC 775. it has now been held that S. 5(6) of the Act would be applicable to a transfer effected after 8-6-1973, but before the date of notice under S. 9(2) of the Act. It has come on record in the instant case that the said notice was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 22-9-1973. This clear from Annexure 1 to the Supplementary Affidavit of Vijai Singh Verma, filed on 23-9-1983. Accordingly, in this case, the aforesaid sale deed dated 25-6-73 would be liable to be ignored under S. 5(6) of the Act but the benefit of the proviso to S. 5(6) of the act would be available to the tenure holder. In other-words. Murari Lal could contend that the land sold under the said sale deed should not be included in his holding because it was a transfer to which the benefit of cl. (b) of the said Proviso should be available. It could be claimed by him that it was a transfer in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a Benami transaction or for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure holders or other members of his family. I may further observe that it is settled law that S. 5(6) applies not only to the transfers made by the tenure holder himself but also by any member of his family. The appellate court committed an error when it observed in its judgment as follows : "The sale made on her behalf cannot be ignored because her land was not to be declared surplus in the Act, but it was the land of Murari Lal which was declared surplus." Now coming to the writ of Smt. Shanti Devi being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.947 of 1979, it deserves to be dismissed. Smt. Shanti Devi has again raised a question that she was a judicially separated wife but this contention was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate court. Writ Petition No.947 of 1979, it deserves to be dismissed. Smt. Shanti Devi has again raised a question that she was a judicially separated wife but this contention was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate court. She placed reliance on the civil court's judgment dated 29-8-1977 in Suit No. 5 of 1977. The relevant date for determining whether the wife was judicially separated would be 8-6-1973 and not any other later date. The appellate court was wrong in its thinking that the relevant date for determining this controversy was 7-8-1976. However, this mistake does not affect the correctness of the verdict of the appellate court because it held that Smt. Shanti Devi became a judicially separated wife on 29-8-1977 after 7-8-1976. Obviously, the said verdict would stand because correct relevant date namely 8-6-1973 would be much prior to 29-8-1977 on which date the civil court granted the judicial separation. 11. Now coming to the writ petition of the tenure holder Murari Lal, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 904 of 1979. I may observe that the points on which the court has been addressed were as follows : It was claimed that certain sale deeds were wrongly ignored by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate Court. It was next contended that certain plots have been wrongly treated as irrigated. According to the learned counsel, they should have been treated as unirrigated, and lastly. it was contended that there was some mistake of calculation. 12. So far as the sale deeds are concerned. detailed arguments were made on behalf of the tenure holder by Sri B. Dixit who placed reliance on my decision reported in 1980 All WC 439 State of U.P. v. District Judge. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Subhadra Bai v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 Mah LJ 638 and on Anandrao Mahure v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 Mah LJ 727. A reference was also made to the following : 1. AIR 1966 SC 1879 Eramma v. Veerupana 2. AIR 1953 All 406 Pheku Chamar v. Harish 3. AIR 1983 SC 1073 Begulla Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 4. AIR 1962 All 43 (FB) Buddhan Singh v. Nabi Bux 5. AIR 1979 SC 1487 The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur v. S. Naganatha Ayyar 6. AIR 1966 SC 1879 Eramma v. Veerupana 2. AIR 1953 All 406 Pheku Chamar v. Harish 3. AIR 1983 SC 1073 Begulla Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 4. AIR 1962 All 43 (FB) Buddhan Singh v. Nabi Bux 5. AIR 1979 SC 1487 The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur v. S. Naganatha Ayyar 6. AIR 1928 PC 273 John H. Arsecularatne v. J. B.M. Perera 7. AIR 1941 PC 128 S.N. Banerji v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. 8. AIR 1968 SC 794 Delhi Motor Co. v. U.A. Basrurkar (dead) 9. AIR 1956 Punj 181 New Delhi Municipal Committee v. H.S. Rikhy. 10. AIR 1953 SC 503 Hemraj v. Rustom Ji. 11. AIR 1957 A.P. 859 Akram Mea v. Secunderabad Municipal Corporation. 12. AIR 1982 SC 913 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin. 13. (1982) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1982 SC 865 Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (dead) v. Mohanlal Punchand Tathed 14. 1969 Rev. Dec. 407 : AIR 1970 SC 1880 Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux. 13. I do not propose to discuss these cases in detail because my said judgment reported in State of U.P. v. District Judge, 1980 All WC 439 has exhaustively dealt with this controversy and in view of the said judgment, which is also supported by the aforementioned decisions of the Bombay High Court, I hold that the appellate court did not decide the controversy correctly while dealing with the sale deeds in questions. It should be seen that even if the sale deeds were to be ignored either because they were void or under section 5(6) of the Act, still, the agreements of sale were there and the tenure holder was claiming that possession of the lands covered by such agreement had been given to the purchasers. However. since this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate court, I feel that the matter deserves to be re-examined by the Prescribed Authority. I also feel that since the case is being remanded to the Prescribed Authority, the question of about some plots having been wrongly held to be unirrigated should also be looked into by the Prescribed Authority. Similarly, the question of wrong calculation as raised on behalf of the tenure holder (Murari Lai), should also be examined by the Prescribed Authority. 14. Accordingly, I dismiss Civil Misc. Similarly, the question of wrong calculation as raised on behalf of the tenure holder (Murari Lai), should also be examined by the Prescribed Authority. 14. Accordingly, I dismiss Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 947 of 1979 Smt. Shanti Devi v. Additional District Judge. I allow the writ petition filed by the State (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 787 of 1979) and the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 904 of 1979 in the manner that the case shall now be remanded to the Prescribed Authority who will freshly examine the controversy regarding the sale deeds in the light as to whether the tenure holder Murari Lal was entitled to the benefit of S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the sale transactions in question. The Prescribed Authority will also re -determine whether certain plots have been wrongly treated as irrigated whereas they should have been treated as unirrigated, Further the mistake of calculation, if any, shall also be taken into consideration and decided. The Prescribed Authority will also decide whether Km. Brijeshwari Devi was a minor or major on 8-6-1973. If she was minor on 8-6-1973 then her land would be included in the holding of her father Murari Lal who was the tenure holder. However, if she was not a minor on the said date, namely 8-6-1973. then her land will not be included in the holding of her father. The Prescribed Authority will decide whether the sale deed dated 25-8-1973 executed on behalf of Km. Sheela Devi was entitled to the benefit of cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 5(6) of the Act. If it be held that the sale deed was entitled to the benefit of the said cl. (b) of the said proviso, then the land covered by the sale deed shall not be included in the holdings of her father Murari Lal, but if it be held that the said sale deed was not entitled to the benefit of the said cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 5(6) of the Act, then the land covered by the said sale deed shall be included in the holding of the said tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority shall re-determine the ceiling area and the surplus land in the light of the aforesaid directions. There will be no order as to costs.