R. A. MEHTA, ACTG. C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner submits that two lands were gifted by registered gift deeds to the minor son before commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity), i. e. 2. 2. 1976. Therefore, this land could not have been included in the holding. ( 2 ) THE appellate authority has considered this aspect and relying upon Sec. 4 (4) (a) of the Act, has held that this land is required to be included in the holding. Sec. 4 (4) (a) and (b) reads as follows : section 4 (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 bona fide sale under a registered deed for valuable consideration) of any vacant land held 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 persons under this chapter shall be selected only out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer. "section 4 (4) (b) :"for the purpose of Clause (a) the burden of proving any sale to be a bona fide one shall be on the testator. "in the present case the registered gift deeds were executed after February, 1975. No where any attempt has been made to show that there was a bona fide transfer. In fact, in case of gift, during this period of one year between February, 1975 and February, 1976, for the purpose of calculating the extent of the vacant land, the lands transferred have to be taken into account. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that this land could not have been included. ( 3 ) IN this view of the matter, this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief vacated. Order as to costs. .