R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved in this petition is whether the 22 transactions of sale of plots of land admeasuring 8550. 51 sq. mts. and the four transactions of gift of eight plots admeasuring 4900. 63 sq. mts. are bonafide transaction under registered deed for valuable consideration under section 4 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 3 provides that no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The ceiling limit is prescribed by section 4 and section 4 (4) provides that for the purpose of calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person the land so transferred shall be taken into account. The said provision reads as follows : (4) (a) : In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance if on or after the 17th day of February 1975 but before the appointed day any person has made any transfer by way of sale mortgage gift lease or otherwise (other than a bonafide sale under a registered deed for valuable consideration) of any vacant land hold by him and situated in such State to any other person whether or not for consideration then for the purposes of calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person the land so transferred shall be taken into account without prejudice to the rights or interests of the transferee in the land so transferred : Provided that the excess vacant land to be surrendered by such person under this chapter shall be selected only out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer. (b) : For the purpose of Cl. (a) the burden of proving any sale to be a bonafide one shall be on the testator. Explanation: Where in any State aforesaid there was or is in force any law prohibiting transfer of urban property in that State except under the circumstances if any specified therein then for the purposes of this sub-section any transfer by way of sale of such property being vacant land made by any person under a registered deed for valuable consideration in accordance with the provisions of such law or in pursuance of any sanction or permission granted under such law shall be a bonafide sale. ( 2 ) THE competent Authority by its order dated August 2 1979 in para 6 of his order held that these transactions were saved by the provisions of section 4 (4) (a) as bonafide transactions observing that these transactions were for valuable consideration and that the land holder had no business relations with the purchasers and the gifts were also by registered deeds and they were in favour of near relatives out of natural affection and they were also hold to be bonafide All these transactions are during the specified period from February 17 1975 to January 20 1976 In fact except three transactions of sale dated September 15 1975 all other transactions of sale are of January 10 1976 or January 16 1976 and all of them are executed and registered at Bombay. The four gift deeds are of October and November 1975 Statement A and B are in respect of the sale deeds and the gift deeds respectively. The Sale deeds are in respect of plots in survey no - 128/1 of Jamnagar and the gin deeds are in respect of 10 plots of survey no. 243 of Jamnagar. From those statement the following summary can be looked at: Sr. Plot No. Area Purchasers name Date of Date of No. (sq. mts) presentation registration of deed for registration 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. 1 334. 44 Gangashankar M. Bhatt 15. 9. 75 5. 5. 76 14 334. 44 2. 2 334. 44 Jayantilal Mavji Bhatt 16. 1. 76 5. 5. 76 3. 34 334. 44 Rashmikant P. Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 4. 5 334. 44 Virendra P. Barot 10. 1. 76 6. 5. 76 5. 6 354. 41 Jasmita Natwarlal & 15. 9. 75 5. 5. 76 7 354. 41 Jayvanti Harendra punjani 6. 9 357. 85 Kusumben G. Punjani 10. 1. 76 6. 5. 76 7. 10 334. 44 Gangashanker M. Punjani 10. 1. 76 6. 5. 76 8. 12 334. 44 Jayantilal Mavji Bhatt 16. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 9. 13 334. 44 Jayantilal Mavji Bhatt 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 10. 24 334. 44 Satish Prabhulal Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 11. 25 334. 44 Dinesh Prabhulal Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 12. 26 334. 44 Mukund J. Khetia 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 13. 30 334. 44 Chandrikaben J. Khetia 16. 13 334. 44 Jayantilal Mavji Bhatt 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 10. 24 334. 44 Satish Prabhulal Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 11. 25 334. 44 Dinesh Prabhulal Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 12. 26 334. 44 Mukund J. Khetia 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 13. 30 334. 44 Chandrikaben J. Khetia 16. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 14. 33 334. 44 Jayendra Prabhulal Barot 16. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 15. 3 334. 44 Rashmikant Prabhulal Barot 10. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 16. 64 449. 34 Jayantkumar Umedlal Bhatt 10. 1. 76 7. 5. 76 17. 70 334. 44 Satish Prabhulal Barot & 15. 9. 76 5. 5. 76 67 334. 44 Dinesh Prabhulal Barot 15. 9. 76 5. 5. 76 18. 76 334. 44 Umedlal Mavji Bhatt 16. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 19. 31 334. 44 Mrudulaben M. Khetia 16. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 20. 65 346. 70 Bharatkumar D. Bhatt 10. 1. 76 10. 5. 76 21. 66 334. 44 Vanitaben Dayashanker 16. 1. 76 10. 5. 75 Statement B : 1. 10 473. 41 Jayantilal Mavji Bhatt 24. 11. 75 4. 5. 76 2. 7 588. 05 Jayantkumar Umedlal Bhatt 24. 11. 75 4. 5. 76 3. 1 803. 12 Satish, Dinesh, Virendra, 10. 10. 75 4. 5. 76 2. 671. 66 and Rashmi P. Barot 3. 656. 33 4. 586. 86 5. 566. 41 4. 9 554. 79 Umedlal M. Bhatt 24. 11. 75 4. 5. 76 ( 3 ) THE Competent Authority after excluding these lands held that the petitioners holding of vacant land in the urban agglomeration was 1956. 76 sq. mts. and it was loss than the ceiling limit of 2000 sq. mts. for Jamnagar urban agglomeration and therefore the proceedings were closed. ( 4 ) BY a notice dated September 24 1982 the Government asked the petitioner to show cause asto why the order of the Competent Authority should not be revised and indication the grounds for such proposed action. It was pointed out that out of the sale transactions of plots admeasuring 17191 o4 sq. mts. 22 sale deeds admeasuring 8550. 11 sq. mts. were in favour of near relatives and the gifts deeds were in respect of 4900. 63 sq. mts. It was pointed out that out of the sale transactions of plots admeasuring 17191 o4 sq. mts. 22 sale deeds admeasuring 8550. 11 sq. mts. were in favour of near relatives and the gifts deeds were in respect of 4900. 63 sq. mts. and why this should not be included in the petitioners holding for declaring surplus land and why such transactions should not be held to have been entered into with a view to defeat the object and purpose of the Act. ( 5 ) THE petitioner in his reply stated that he had urgent need of finance for the working capital of his hotel and for furniture and fixtures of his hotel and therefore he had sold his lands and the sale proceeds of Rs. 3 lacs wore utilised for completing the hotel project and the hotel was started on August 29 1976 The Government hold that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the transactions were bonafide sales and therefore held that the land was required to be included in the holding of the petitioner for the purpose of computation of the holding and ceiling. As far as the gift deeds are concerned they wore obviously and admittedly without consideration and therefore they could not have been excluded from the computation of the ceiling. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Competent Authority had arrived at its conclusion on the basis of evidence on record that the transactions were bonafide and therefore the Government in revision could not have come to a different conclusion on a finding of fact. It is submitted that the show cause notice was issued after three years and after such a long lapse of time the Government should not have exercised suo motu power of revision and in the meantime the resales had also taken place in 1981 It was also submited that the transactions were bonafide; they wore for valuable consideration; they were by registered deeds. The income-tax returns and valuation reports were also produced showing these transactions and there was no benami transaction and the petitioner was in need of money for completing the hotel construction which was started in 1972 and these transactions cannot be said to be in any manner malafide or illegal or lacking in bonafide. The income-tax returns and valuation reports were also produced showing these transactions and there was no benami transaction and the petitioner was in need of money for completing the hotel construction which was started in 1972 and these transactions cannot be said to be in any manner malafide or illegal or lacking in bonafide. It was also submitted that the onus is on the Government to prove that the transactions were not bonafide. It is submitted that when the Government comes out with the case of lack of bonafide it is for the Government to deal with the same and that the Government has not led any evidence. ( 7 ) ON the question of onus there is an express porvision in section 4 (4) (b) that the burden of proving any sale to be bonafide one shall be on the transferor. In view of this express statutory provision there is no merit in the contention that the burden is on the Government. Even otherwise the circumstances of the transfers would be within the special knowledge of the transferor and not of the Government and it is for the transferor to bring all the evidence in respect of his contention of bonafide nature of the transaction. In the present case the transactions have not been preceded by any banakhat or agreement. They are directly sale deeds. ( 8 ) THE notification dated January 12 1976 published in Government gazette on January 28 1976 recites that eleven States have already passed resolutions under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution empowering the Parliament to undertake legislation in this behalf. Therefore the act of the State Legislatures in having passed the resolution is a matter of public knowledge. In fact six Legislatures have passed resolutions as back as in 1972 and on August 14 1972 the resolution and the discussion on that resolution is published in Official Publication of Debates of 4 Gujarat Legislative Assembly Vol. 37 Part II pages 759 to 787 and the matter of imposition of urban land ceiling on vacant land had been the subject of public discussion in the newspapers for quite sometime before the Bill was introduced. 37 Part II pages 759 to 787 and the matter of imposition of urban land ceiling on vacant land had been the subject of public discussion in the newspapers for quite sometime before the Bill was introduced. It is for this reason that the transaction between February 17 1975 and January 20 1976 have been subjected to this special provision because several persons in anticipation of such legislation might have transferred lands with a view to defeat the Urban Land Ceiling Legislation. Therefore this provision under section 4 (4 ). If the transaction is not with a view to defeat the anticipated legislation but if it is a genuine and bonafide sale between a willing seller and a willing purchaser in ordinary course of business not being influenced by the anticipated legislation such transaction can be said to be a bona fide transaction. If the transaction is not shown to be such a bonafide transaction then the onus is on the transferor to show that the transaction must be ignored for the purpose of computation of the holding of the vacant land of the transferor. ( 9 ) IN the present case the dates of transfers and also the close relationship of many of these transferees clearly show that there was undue haste in seeing that anyhow all the lands are transferred from the name of the petitioner to his close family members and other persons. Out of 22 transactions 19 transactions are within the period of one week i. e. from 10th January to 16th January and they appear to be amongst the members of four families including that of the petitioner. It is true that the transactions are by registered sale deeds and not benami and that the sale proceeds have been show and disclosed in income-tax returns. However that would not prove that the transaction are bonafide and not with a view to defeat the provisions of the anticipated and impending law of Urban Land Ceiling. In fact when so many transaction have been undertaken in the course of a week from 10th January to 16th January 1976 after the resolution of the Gujarat Legislature authorising the Central Legislature to pass a legislation on urban land ceiling his fact itself shows that these transactions were not bonafide transactions. In fact when so many transaction have been undertaken in the course of a week from 10th January to 16th January 1976 after the resolution of the Gujarat Legislature authorising the Central Legislature to pass a legislation on urban land ceiling his fact itself shows that these transactions were not bonafide transactions. ( 10 ) MOREOVER no evidence has been led by the petitioner obout his socalled need of finance for completion of the hotel project. It has not been shown by producing any evidence that any finance was needed and was required to be raised by selling these lands only and that sale proceeds of these lands have been utilised for the said hotel. There is no evidence whatsoever excepting the bare averment of the petitioner. When there are such glaring and storng circumstances showing that the transactions are in favour of family members or with other closely related persons and that too in the short span of time the conclusion is irresistible that the transactions were not bonafide sales but were with a view to defeat the provisions of the anticipated and imminent Urban Land Ceiling Act. ( 11 ) THE finding of the Competent Authority that the transactions wore bonafide was clearly perverse and no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. The Competent Authority has failed even to consider whether these transactions were with a view to defeat the provisions of the anticipated legislation. It has even gone to the extent of excluding even the gifts i. e. the transfers without any valuable consideration. The Competent Authority has even observed that the parties did not have business relations but not noticed that they had very close family relations and that the transactions were amongst the members of four families only. Such a perverse finding cannot be accepted by any authority and the Government has rightly interfered and reversed that finding. ( 12 ) THERE is no merit in the ground that the Government could not have acted and issued notice after three years. The period would depend on the fact asto when the Government comes to know about such illegality as hold by this Court inthe case of Manish K. Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. XXVI (1)GLR 202. ( 13 ) IN view of the obove there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The period would depend on the fact asto when the Government comes to know about such illegality as hold by this Court inthe case of Manish K. Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. XXVI (1)GLR 202. ( 13 ) IN view of the obove there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with costs. Interim relief vacated. The authorities are directed to take further Proceedings expeditiously. Petition Dismissed. .