JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J.- This writ petition under Article 229 of the Constitution arises from the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act). 2 On March 20, 1974 notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued by the Prescribed Authority to the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection. The Prescribed Authority disposed of the objection by the order dated December 23, 1974 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 13 of the Act. The appeal was decided ex parte on March 9, 1976. An application made by the petitioner before the appellate authority for the ex parte order being set aside, was rejected on 15th April, 1976. Against these two orders the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 3143 of 1976 in this Court. The petition was allowed on August 28, 1978 and the appellate authority was directed to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law. The decision of the appellate authority was given thereafter on November 30, 1978, The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with certain observations. The Prescribed Authority recorded the finding dated October 6, 1980 to the effect that the land measuring 4 Bigha 15 Bishwa 15 Biswansi is surplus with the petitioner. Against this the petitioner again preferred appeal which was registered as Ceiling appeal No. 17 of 1980. The appeal was dismissed by order dated February 2, 1983. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the writ of certiorari for the order dated 2nd February, 1983 made by the appellate authority and the order made by the Prescribed Authority dated October 6, 1980 being quashed. 4. Sri R.H. Zaidi learned counsel for the petitioner raised one point only in support of the writ petition. The contention made is that on August 27, 1971 the wife of the petitioner had made transfer of certain land in favour of Raunaq Ali and that transferee was recorded also in the revenue papers. It was incumbent to have issued notice to him on the part of the Prescribed Authority. This, however, was not done. In the result the determination of the surplus land has been made without providing an opportunity to the said transferee. In support of this contention the learned counsel refers to rule 8 framed under the Act. It was incumbent to have issued notice to him on the part of the Prescribed Authority. This, however, was not done. In the result the determination of the surplus land has been made without providing an opportunity to the said transferee. In support of this contention the learned counsel refers to rule 8 framed under the Act. The proviso to this rule lays down that where the statement in C.L.H. Form 3 also includes land ostensibly held in the name of any other person, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be served upon such other person a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the statement drawn by the Prescribed Authority calling upon him to show cause within the specified period why the aforesaid statement be not taken as correct. It is not in dispute that no such notice was given to Raunaq Ali the transferee in the instant case. 5. Learned Standing Counsel strenuously argued that the Prescribed Authority has on October 6, 1980 recorded the finding that the deed of sale dated August 27, 1971 executed subsequent to January 24, 1971, was not a bona fide transaction. It is submitted that the transferee is none else than the son of the petitioner and the transfer made is by the petitioner's wife. The petitioner has throughout been the party to these proceedings; the land held by his wife has been clubbed together with the land of the petitioner for purposes of the determination of the ceiling. On these facts the argument is, there was no basis for notice to have issued to the transferee only. 6. Having given careful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it seems to me that the requirement of notice under the aforesaid rule 8 is mandatory and the same cannot be treated as dispensed with on the basis that the transferor or her husband has been a party to the proceeding. The reason for insisting upon such a notice to issue to the transferee is not far to seek. As will appear from proviso (b) to section 5(6) of the Act in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder transfer during any proceeding of land made after January 24, 1971 is to be a general rule ignored and not taken into account. As will appear from proviso (b) to section 5(6) of the Act in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder transfer during any proceeding of land made after January 24, 1971 is to be a general rule ignored and not taken into account. However, there is an exception to this general rule, namely, that where the transfer is proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to have been made in good faith and for adequate consideration, the benefit thereof accrues nonetheless to the transferee. The burden to establish the bona fides of the transaction will lie upon the transferee. In this manner the transferee is given a statutory right to plead in defence of the transaction entered into by him that this was made in good faith and for consideration. If notice of the proceedings was not issued to him, he will have been clearly deprived of this opportunity which the law confers. Moreover from section 12 A(d) of the Act it will appear that if the land other than the land transferred does not meet the area declared as surplus, the Prescribed Authority may also fall back upon such land as has been the subject matter of the transfer to a third person. Thus under these circumstances there is risk as against the transferee to the effect that the land standing in his name or claimed to have been acquired by him may be Included within the land declared as surplus pertaining to the tenure holder and on this footing also he should have the requisite opportunity to put forward his contention. The contention for the petitioner in this behalf is, it will further appear, concluded by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Shantanu Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1979 A.W.C. 85) wherein it was held that the Prescribed Authority is in such a case bound in view of rule 8 quoted above to issue notice on such person. The transferee in the instant case is recorded in the revenue papers as is made clear from the extract of Khatauni for the period 1376 to 1378 F. (Annexure IV to the writ petition). The entry was made by order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in mutation proceedings dated January 15, 1972. This was prior to the issue of notice to the petitioner dated March 20, 1974. The entry was made by order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in mutation proceedings dated January 15, 1972. This was prior to the issue of notice to the petitioner dated March 20, 1974. The land shown in C.L.H. Form 3 includes also the land which is held ostensibly by Raunaq Ali by virtue of the alleged purchase claimed to have been made on August 27, 1971. 7. Consideration being had to the discussion made in the above, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. The appellate authority shall redecide the issue in regard to the bona fides of the transfer dated August 27, 1971 after giving notice to the transferee as required under Rule 8 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Other contentions raised by the petitioner shall not be open to reagitation. In the circumstances costs shall be borne by the parties.