(1) DOHAR Singh held 88.99 acres of unirrigated land. He sold 21.50 acres to Chandra Shakhar by a registered sale-deed dated 17/04/1972. In the proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (the Act) the competent authority declared the sale to be void by order dated 8/01/1975. Chandra Shakhar preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23/02/1978. He challenged the orders of the authorities under the Act by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India which was allowed by the Madhya Pradesh High court and the orders of the competent authority and the Board of Revenue were set aside. The sale in dispute was declared to be valid. This appeal by way of special leave is by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the High court. (2) SS. 1 and 4 of Section 4 of the Act which are relevant are as. under: "(1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, where after, the 1/01/1971, but before the appointed day, any holder has transferred any land held by him by way of sale, gift, exchange or otherwise or has effected a partition of his holding or part thereof or the holding held by the holder has been transferred in execution of a decree of any court, the Competent Authority may, after notice to the holder and other persons affected by such transfer or partition and after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, declare the transfer or partition to be void, if it finds that the transfer or the partition, as the case may be, was made in anticipation of or to defeat the provisions of this Act. (2 * * * (3 * * *. (4 In regard to every transfer to which this section applies, the burden of proving that the transfer was not benami or was not made in any other manner to defeat the provisions of this Act shall be on the transferor." (3) THE object and the purpose of the Act is to provide ceiling on the agricultural holdings, acquisition of surplus land and its disposal. Provisions of Section 4 of the Act are a check on the transfers and the partitions which are 6 made with a view to circumvent and defeat the provisions of the Act. Provisions of Section 4 of the Act are a check on the transfers and the partitions which are 6 made with a view to circumvent and defeat the provisions of the Act. (4) THE High court on the interpretation of Section 4(4 held as under: (A) The word "benami" in Ss. (4 of Section 4 of the Act refers to the transfers which are sham, fictitious, nominal or bogus. (B) The burden to be discharged under Section 4(4 of the Act is a negative burden and as such less degree of proof than is usually required is warranted. Such evidence as renders existence of negative probable, changes the burden to the other party. (C) Following four elements are mandatory to void a transfer under Section 4(4- "(I) there must be a transfer by way of sale, gift, exchange or otherwise; (II) that the impugned transfer must have taken place during the period specified under Section 4(4; (III) it must have been made in anticipation of the Act, having the effect of defeating any of the provisions of the Act; (IV) that the impugned transfer is benami i.e. sham, fictitious, nominal or bogus." (5) THE propositions (a) and (b) above are unexceptionable. We are, however, of the view that the High court fell into error in holding that unless the four elements spelt out by the High court are present the transfer cannot be declared void. It is not the requirement of Section 4(4 that both the elements (c)(iii) and (c)(iv) are to be present to render a transfer void. The presence of either of the two elements is sufficient to declare the transfer void under the Act. The High court was not justified in reading the word "or" after the word "benami" as and. A bare reading of Section 4(4 of the Act makes it clear that in either of the eventualities - defeating any of the provisions of the Act or being benami - the transfer is liable to be declared void. (6) THE facts of this case clearly show that the sale was made by Dohar Singh with the clear object of defeating the provisions of the Act. Section 4(4 of the Act came into force on 7/03/1974 by way of an amendment of the Act. (6) THE facts of this case clearly show that the sale was made by Dohar Singh with the clear object of defeating the provisions of the Act. Section 4(4 of the Act came into force on 7/03/1974 by way of an amendment of the Act. The sale deed was executed and registered a day before the publication of the amendment Bill which ultimately brought Section 4 into the Act. The sale deed having been made after 1/01/1971 it came within the mischief of S. 4(1 and 4(4 of the Act. On the basis of the evidence the Board of Revenue came to the following finding: UNLESS reasonable circumstances are disclosed it would be difficult to justify that the transfer was not done to defeat the provisions of the Act. In this case the holder has not taken any care to come forth with sufficient reasons as to why the land was sold by him. Undoubtedly the price received by him was inadequate and the appellant also has not given any justification as to why he suddenly developed an interest to purchase lands when he had sold his own about 15 years ago. The appellant has not been able to produce a receipt for Rs. 2,500.00 paid to respondent 2, when he took the possession of the land. He would have in the ordinary course asked for such a receipt. Whatever evidence has been adduced in the said case shows that the respondent-holder wanted to sell his lands for which he had not given sufficient reasons. It is further supported by the fact that he has sold nearly 40 acres of land on 17/04/1972 and thereby reduced his holding from 90 acres to 50 acres. This fact is itself sufficient to come to the conclusion that the holder made these sales to defeat the provisions of the Act." We are of the view that the High court was not justified in reversing the above quoted findings of fact reached by the Board of Revenue. (7) WE, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High court and restore the orders of the competent officer as upheld by the Board of Revenue. We quantify the costs as Rs. 10,000.00.