JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Mabender Kaur, widow of Wing Commander Late Pritam Singh, resident of village Qumsani, district Naini Tal, against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Naini Tal, allowing Ceiling Appeal No. 111 of 1981 Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. and Ceiling Appeal No. 112 of 1981 Dalvinder Singh v. Smt. Mahender Kaur and Anr.. 2. The facts of the present writ petition are these : A notice u/s 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was served on the Petitioner Smt. Mahender Kaur proposing to deolare certain area of land with her as surplus. Smt. Mahender Kaur sold 40 Bighas of plot No. 334-M, situate in village Gumsani and 40 Bighas of plot No. 6-M, situate in village Bichnuri through a registered sale deed dated January 1, 1974, in favour of one Ourdev Singh, son of Piara Singh, resident of village Gumsani for a total consideration of Rs. 37,500/- She also sold 64 Bighas of the aforesaid plot No. 334-M, through a registered sale deed dated May 10, 1974, in favour of Raghubir Singh, Jasvir Singh and Rajpal Singh for Rs. 30,000/-. Apart from these two sale deeds of village gumasni, she also executed a third sale deed dated May 10, 1974, in respect of 64 Bighas of plot No. 6M, situate in village Bichpuri in favour of Dalvinder Singh for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. Smt. Mahinder Kaur filed objections contending that the statement given Jo CLH from 3 of Part C was incorrect as she had transferred major part of her holding through the aforesaid sale deeds. Gurdev Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jasvir Singh, Rajpal Singh, and Dalvinder Singh, who were the purchasers, also filed objections before the Prescribed Authority. 3. Holding that the sale deeds executed in favour of the aforesaid persons were invalid, the Prescribed Authority ignored the same and held by the judgment dated 30th June, 1976, that the Petitioner had 246 Bighas 4 Biswas in terms of unirrigated land and 12 Biswas Usar land as surplus In her holding Against the aforesaid judgment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal, which was appeal No. 870 of 1976. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 also filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was appeal No. 825 of 1976. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 also filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was appeal No. 825 of 1976. The third appeal No. 782 of 1976 had been preferred by Gurdev Singh All the three appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25th March, 1977, by the Third Additional District Judge, Naini Tal. While dealing with the transfer deeds made in favour of Respondents 3 to 6 and also in favour of Gurdev Singh, the learned Additional District Judge held them to be void in view of Section 5(8) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge while accepting the choice of the Petitioner observed that the land transferred through the aforesaid void sale deeds could not be considered u/s 12-A(d) of the Act. 4. Against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, the Petitioner Smt. Mahender Kaur filed Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1977 in this Court. Dalvinder Singh preferred another writ, which was numbered as 2875 of 1977. A third writ petition filed was by Gurdev Singh and that was Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1977. All the three writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 2nd January, 1979. The Petitioner Smt. Mahender Kaur, thereafter, filed a SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The SLP was numbered as SLP (Civil) 4540 of 1979. Gurdev Singh also had fifed SLP in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave Petitions by observing: Upon hearing counsel, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. But so far as the surplus land to be surrendered is concerned, the Prescribed Authority shall decide as to which land should be required to be surrendered, after hearing the tenure holder Smt. Mahender Kaur as a transferor and Gurdev Singh Legal Representative and in accordance with the Section 12A of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as also the agreement dated 16-1-1974 and the sale deed. between the tenure holder Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Gurdev Singh relating to the transferee of the land. 5. In accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner gave her choice on 21st May, 1981, to retain the land la the ceiling area This was, however, subsequently changed and the ultimate choice given was as below: Village Gumsani plot 334M Area 87 Bigha.Village Bichpuri plot 6M Area 86 Bigha 2 Biswa 6. 5. In accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner gave her choice on 21st May, 1981, to retain the land la the ceiling area This was, however, subsequently changed and the ultimate choice given was as below: Village Gumsani plot 334M Area 87 Bigha.Village Bichpuri plot 6M Area 86 Bigha 2 Biswa 6. On June 30, 1981, the Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, accepted the choice given by the Petitioner in its entirety. The Prescribed Authority observed that in accepting the same he would be following the direction of the Supreme Court and also complied with the terms of the agreement dated 16-1-1974 entered into between the Petitioner and Gurdev Singh. Against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, Respondents 3 to 5 filed Ceiling Appeal No. 111 of 1981 and Respondent 6 preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 112 of 1981. The two appeals were allowed by the First Additional District Judge on 4-12-1981, and the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was quashed. 7. The learned Additional District Judge held that although the Respondents 3 to 6 were the transferees having obtained the sale deeds in the year 1974, but were still covered by Section 12-A (d) of the Act. Taking this view, the Additional District Judge held: Let me make my meaning clear. Having regard to the compactness of the land, the Prescribed Authority shall declare surplus land after excluding 64 Bighas land of plot No. 334 purchased by the Appellants of Ceiling Appeal No. 111 of 1981 and 64 Bighas land of plot No. 6 Minjumla purchased by the Appellant of ceiling appeal No. 112 of 1981 and after further excluding 87 Bighas land of plot No. 334 and 86 Bighas 02 Biswas land of plot No. 6 Minjumla desired to be retained by the tenure holder in her ceiling land, If however, it is not possible to allow the tenure holder to retain 87 Bighas land of plot No. 334 and 86 Bighas 02 Biswas land of plot No. 6 Minjumla after excluding 64 Bighas land out of each of these two plots purchased by the Appellants of the two appeals, then her choice to retain these two plots or any of them would be curtailed by the area which foils short of the surplus area not available otherwise. 8. The question that crops up for decision is whether Section 12-A(d) applies to the present ease. 8. The question that crops up for decision is whether Section 12-A(d) applies to the present ease. This provision confers a right of giving a choice to the tenure holder whose land has been declared surplus. The main provision lays down that the tenure holder would indicate his choice with respect to the plots which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him. The Proviso thereafter makes it incumbent on the Prescribed Authority to accept the choice in cases covered by Clauses (a) to (d). Clause (d), with which I am concerned in the present case, provides that where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area, including land which is the subject matter of any transfer or partition referred to in Sub-section (6) or Sub-Section (7) of Section 5, the surplus land determined shall, as far as possible, be land other than the land which is the subject of such transfer. 9. The aforesaid clause covers cases of transfers mentioned in Sub-section (6) of Section 5. It is by this provision that a transfer after the Twentyfourth day of January nineteen hundred seventy one which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under the Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. Proviso (b) carves out an exception in favour of a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration. 10. The object of Clause (d) of Section 12-A if read with Sub-section (6) of Section 5 would be found to save as far as possible those transferees who obtained transfers In between the two periods, referred to above. Sub-section (6) was brought into the Act by U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975, coming into force on 8th June, 1973. The intention, therefore, was that if any one between 24th January, 1971, and 8tb June, 1973, had obtained any sale deed in good faith and. for adequate consideration, he should not be made to suffer. For this purpose, Clause (d) of Section 12-A made it incumbent on the Prescribed Authority to include, as far as possible, the land falling under Sub-section (6) of Section 5 within the ceiling limit of the tenure holder so that the purchaser in good faith and for adequate consideration does not suffer. 11. For this purpose, Clause (d) of Section 12-A made it incumbent on the Prescribed Authority to include, as far as possible, the land falling under Sub-section (6) of Section 5 within the ceiling limit of the tenure holder so that the purchaser in good faith and for adequate consideration does not suffer. 11. Transfers made during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land were specifically provided in Sub-section (8) of Section 5. It laid down: No. tenure holder shall transfer any land held by him during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land in relation to such tenure holder and every transfer made in contravention of this Sub-section shall be void. 12. There is a marked difference between the language of Sub-section (6) and Sub-section (8) of Section 5. Sub-section (6) only provides for ignoring the transfers made in between 24th January, 1971, and 8th June 1973. Even those transfers which were made during this period and were bonafide and for adequate consideration could be held to be valid and binding. The result of acceptance of such transfers would be that the land conveyed under them would not be considered to be that of the tenure holder. Sub-section (8) provides that any transfer during the continuance of ceiling proceedings would be void. The term "void" would mean that the transaction would have No. legal effect. It would be without force, null and ineffective. As a transfer made during this period is void, and has not to be recognised for any purpose, the legislature did not make a similar provision regarding transfers covered by Proviso (b) to Sub-section (6) of Section 5. The result would be that No. transferee would be entitled to force upon the transferor that the land sold to him may not be declared as surplus. As the legislature has not provided for a case covered by Sub-section (8) of Section 5, the same cannot be applied to a transfer governed by Sub-section (8) of Section 5. The learned Additional District Judge committed an error in directing the Prescribed Authority to mould the choice of the Petitioner in such a manner that the plots transferred to Respondents 3 to 5 are brought within the Petitioners ceiling area. The learned Additional District Judge committed an error in directing the Prescribed Authority to mould the choice of the Petitioner in such a manner that the plots transferred to Respondents 3 to 5 are brought within the Petitioners ceiling area. The use of the expression void in Sub-section (8) of Section 5 is with a view to convey the idea of total lack of existence, and the direction of the Additional District Judge to accept the same would be against the provisions of law. 13. In fact, in the present case, the Additional District Judge on 25th March, 1977, had dismissed appeal No. 826 of 1976 preferred by Raghubir Singh and others (Respondents 3 to 5 in the present petition) and found that their sale deed had No. recognition in the eye of law on account of Sub-section (8) of Section 5. This order was upheld by the High Court in the writ petition. This judgment became final. Since this judgment bad become final, the controversy of the sale deed made in favour of Respondents 3 to 5 is a closed chapter. The Additional District Judge committed an error in ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter and giving a direction which runs contrary to the decision of this Court. These persons, including Dalvinder Singh, Respondent 6, did not challenge it before the Supreme Court. 14. In Smt. Phoolmati v. VII Additional District Judge 1981 ALJ 1293 following a decision of this Court in Km. Rani Sushila Devi v. State 1979 ALJ 1099 Hon'ble M.P. Mehrotra, J. held that Section 12-A(d) applies only to transfer deeds disregarded u/s 5(6). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in this case. The same view has been taken in Ikram v. State 1984 ALJ 400. 15. Sri Rajesh Tandon, counsel for the Respondents contended that even If the case of the aforesaid Respondents is not strictly covered by Clause (d) of Section 12-A, it would definitely come under the main provision of the said section. He submitted that the main provision does not restrict its application of giving choice to the transfers covered by Sub-section (6) of Section 5. He submitted that the main provision does not restrict its application of giving choice to the transfers covered by Sub-section (6) of Section 5. As already pointed out, Section 12-A(d) confers right on a tenure holder to give choice and as a transfer made during the continuance of the ceiling proceedings is to be regarded as void u/s 5(8), the transferee of such a deed has No. right to be recognised. The tenure holder In such a situation would be entitled to Ignore the sale deed and the remedy of the purchaser may lie else where, and not under this Act. 16. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The judgment of the learned First Additional District Judge, Naini Tal, dated 4-12-1981 Is quashed.