R. B. MEHROTRA, J. All the aforesaid Review Petitions have been filed against my judgment, dated 15th of May, 1995 dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12024 of 1992 along with 82 writ petitions decided by the same judgment. 2. The present review applications have been filed by the applications in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 885, 886, 887, 888 and 891 of 1992 which have also been dismissed by the same judgment. 3. In the present review applications, the applicants contention is that the points raised by the petitioners in their writ petitions, have neither been considered nor decided in the judgment given by me while deciding bunch of writ petitions by a common judgment. 4. Applicant Devkinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 885 of 1992, claimed in his writ petition that he had instituted a revenue suit being Revenue Suit No. 22/234 in the year 1989- 90, under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act wherein he claimed to have impleaded Smt. Krishna Kapoor State of Uttar Pradesh and Gaon Sabha as respondents. Petitioner further claimed that the petitioners suit was decreed ex parte by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kashspur, vide his judgment and decree, dated 7:5-1990 and the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid decree got his name recorded in the revenue records, but without any notice or information to the petitioner, the land for which the petitioner sought declaration claiming it to be his bhumidhari, has been notified by the respondents under Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), m Form 6 declaring the aforesaid land as surplus land of M/s Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , Kashipur. The contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was that the said judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner has become final against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and is binding on the State Government and declaration of the aforesaid land under Rule 13 as surplus land of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. is ab initio void and illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the petitioners obtained an ad interim order from this Court directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the petitioners obtained an ad interim order from this Court directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 5. The grievance of the other applicants in the present review applications, who were petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 886 of 1992, 387 of 1992, 888 of 1992 and 891 of 1992, is of similar nature. The only difference in these cases is that while in the case of Devidnandan Agrawal, the defendant in his suit was Srnt. Krishna Kapoor while in the case of Abhinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 886 of 1992, the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed arraying Sri Shashi Kapoor as a defendant in the suit. In the writ petition filed by Smi. Surajmukhi being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 887 of 1992,. she claims to have sought a declaration under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, arraying Sri Randhir Kapoor and others as defendant- Again in the case of Srinandan Agrawal, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petitiion No. 888 of 1992, the defendant in his suit was Smt. Uma Sial and in the case olashok Kumar, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 891 of 1992, the defendant in his suit was again Smt. Uma Sial. 6. The point raised in all the aforesaid review application is common and main contention of the applicants is that these petitioners have acquired independent rights over the land by virtue of the judgment and decree of a competent court which was binding on the State Government, as such without any notice to these petitioners, the land which was recorded in their names as their bhumidhari on the basis of a judgment and decree of a competent courts, could not have been notified under rule of the Rules framed under the Act as surplus land of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. The further contention of the applicants is that this aspect of the matter has not been considered in my judgment against which the review applica tions have been filed. 7. Before dealing with the contention of the applicants, it is necessary to point out that Sri Randhir Kapoor has himself filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Misc. 7. Before dealing with the contention of the applicants, it is necessary to point out that Sri Randhir Kapoor has himself filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11735 of 1992, Sri Shashi Kapoor has filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11737 of 1992, Smt. Krishna Kapoor has filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11738 of 1992 and Smt. Uma Sial has filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11736 of 1992. All these four persons have contended before this Court that they are transferees of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , and are in possession of the land so transferred in their names and on the basis of the aforesaid statement obtained ex parte interim orders from this Court staying their dispossession. The aforesaid four writ petitions have already been decided along with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12024 or 1992 by the same judgment against which the present review applications have been filed. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the aforesaid petitioners, namely, Sarvasri Randhir Kapoor, Shashi Kapoor, Smt. Krishna Kapoor and Smt. Uma Sial are not bonaflde transferees and it has also been held that they are not in actual posses sion of the land in dispute. This fact itself will demonstrate that how contradictory statements have been made by two set of petitioner, one claiming to be transferees from M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , and claiming to be continuing in posses sion of the said land and the other claiming that they have become bhumidhar of the Ian4 on the basis of the declaration made by a competent court in their favour. It is apparent from the aforesaid statement of fact that either of the two set of petitioners have made a false statement in the court claiming to be in possession for the same piece of land. This also shows the falsity of the allegations made by the two set of petitioners regarding their claim of the possession of the land. 8. Admittedly, the land for which the applicants have filed writ petitions was a part of land for which the proceedings under the Act were initiated in the year 1974 against M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 12024 of 1992. 8. Admittedly, the land for which the applicants have filed writ petitions was a part of land for which the proceedings under the Act were initiated in the year 1974 against M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 12024 of 1992. All the four persons, named above, against whom the present applicants have filed suits and obtained ex parte, decree of declaration of their bhumidhari rights themselves contested the proceedings under the Act, by filing objections before the Prescribed Authority wherein they claimed that they are in actual possession of the land in dispute. 9. The ex parte decree has been obtained by the present applicants against those alleged transferees by filing suits in the year 1989-90 i. e. , during the pendency of the proceedings. under the Act. 10. The Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1978, came into force on 8-6-1973. Section 5 of the Act mandated that on and from the commencement of the Act, no tenure holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Section 3 (6) of the Act provided that in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under the Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account. Explanation I to the aforesaid section is important and as such is being reproduced below: "explanation I.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, includes- (a) a declaration of a person as a co-tenure holder made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, in a suit or proceeding irrespective of whether such suit or proceeding was pending on or was instituted after the twenty fourth day of January, 971. (b) any admission, acknowledgment, relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. " Sub-clause (a) of Explanation I makes it clear that a transfer will also include a declaration in favour of any person made in any other manner which will include a declaration of a court of competent jurisdiction also. " Sub-clause (a) of Explanation I makes it clear that a transfer will also include a declaration in favour of any person made in any other manner which will include a declaration of a court of competent jurisdiction also. Sub-Section (8) of Section 5 of the Act is also relevant for the present pur pose- (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6) and (7), 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. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, proceedings for determina tion of surplus la id shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of publication of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have concluded on the date when an order in relation to such tenure holder is passed under sub-sec tion (1) of Section 11 or under sub-section (1) of Section 12, or as the case may be, under Section 13. " 11. A collective reading of Section 5 (8) read with Explanation I to sub-section (6) of the Act, clearly mandates that any declaration made by a competent court after 24th of January, 1971 and in any case after 8th of June, 1973 is to be ignored for the purposes of determining the ceiling area of a tenure- holder. In view of these provisions, it is apparent that the applicants cannot claim any independent right on the basis of alleged declaration made in their favour by ex pane judgment which these applicants obtained against the alleged transferees of M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. 12. These cases only reveal how ex pane judgments can be manipulated and managed by the clever litigants. The applicants could never have brought to the notice of the court that the land for which they are seeking declaration is a subject-matter of proceedings under the Act. These cases only reveal how ex pane judgments can be manipulated and managed by the clever litigants. The applicants could never have brought to the notice of the court that the land for which they are seeking declaration is a subject-matter of proceedings under the Act. The present applicants have not filed the copy of the plaint on the basis of which the ex pane decree has been obtained by them, but the facts discussed in the judgment clearly reveal that the court was not conscious of the fact that the land for which the plaintiffs were seeking declaration of their bhumidhari rights under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, was subject-matter of the proceedings under the Act. The ex pane judgment seems to have been obtained by concealing the correct facts which amounts to playing fraud on the court. However, since the petitioners have never been confronted with the aforesaid issue, I do not want to express any opinion on it, suffice it to say that the alleged declaration made in favour of the applicants was to be ignored in view of the provisions of the Act which I have reproduced earlier. 13. In the main judgment against which the review applications have been filed, I have already held that the alleged transfers made by M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , were no bona fide and I have also held that M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. , continued to be in possession of the said land. For the aforesaid reasons, the review applications have no merit and are accord ingly dismissed. (Application dismissed.) .