Judgment All these four writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 15.03.1990, passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, in ceiling appeal No.3 of 1989-90, whereby judgment and order dated 31.07.1984 passed by Prescribed . Authority S.D.O Dehradun in ceiling case No.10 of 1981-82, State Vs. Krishan Lal, is affirmed. The orders are passed by respondents No.1 and 2 under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act NO.1 of 1961) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Prescribed Authority, exercising its power under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred as the Act), issued notices in respect of plot No. 148/2, situated in Village Raiwala, District Dehradun, in respect of combined area of 62.76 acres of land as to why not 43.59 acres be not declared surplus out of said allegedly irrigated land. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were not served with the notices, issued by the Prescribed Authority. However, they filed objections before the Prescribed Authority. The persons, who filed the objections are Ram Singh (Manager of Sri Vrindaban Gaushala Trust and petitioner of writ petition NO.7 44 (M/S) of 2001), claiming himself to be bhumidhar of 12 acres of land, Hira Kalyan Das (petitioner of writ petition No. 840 (M/S) of 2001), claiming himself to be bhumidhar of another 12 acres of land, Gauri Shanker Mandir Trust (petitioner of writ petition No. 743 (MIS) of 2001), claiming it to be bhumidhar of 10.76 acres of land, Kundi Bai (petitioner of writ petition No. 839 (MIS) of 2001), claiming herself to be bhumidhar of 12 acres of land, and one Narayan Singh, who claimed himself to be bhumidhar of remaining 4 acres of land in question. After Narain Singh died during the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, name of Ram Singh was substituted in his place. (Krishan Lal, who claimed bhumidhar of 12 acres of total land in question also, filed his objections). The objections filed before the Prescribed Authority, by the petitioners are almost identical, which are reproduced below : 1. That the objector is the bhumidhar of Khasra plot No. 148/2 in an area......acres situated in Village Raiwala, Pargana, Parwa Doon, District Dehradun. 2. (Krishan Lal, who claimed bhumidhar of 12 acres of total land in question also, filed his objections). The objections filed before the Prescribed Authority, by the petitioners are almost identical, which are reproduced below : 1. That the objector is the bhumidhar of Khasra plot No. 148/2 in an area......acres situated in Village Raiwala, Pargana, Parwa Doon, District Dehradun. 2. That the notice under Section 10(2) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1961, as amended up to date, published in newspaper, is against law, equity, justice and the facts. 3. That UP Act No. 1 of 1961 and the various amendments made thereunder from time to time, contravene directive principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 4. That the explanation (2) of Section 4 A, totally ignores the ownership of private source of irrigation, while in the private irrigation work ownership of source of irrigation is of greater importance in determining the fact whether the tenure holder has any right to use the source of irrigation as of right or not. If the tenure holder has no right to use the source of irrigation as of right such area cannot be treated as an irrigated area. In view of this determination of ceiling limit on the basis of irrigated and unirrigated land, is ab-nitio illegal and void. 5. The objector is tenure holder and Shri Krishan Lal Gularjani has no concern as neither he is bhumidhar nor sirdar. 4. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001 (M/S) copy of the aforesaid objections dated 28.06.1982, are annexed as Annexure- SA 9 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 04.06.2002), filed on behalf of the petitioner in which area claimed is 12 acres by Ram Singh on behalf of the petitioner concerned. In writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (MIS), copy of objections dated 28.06.1982, filed by Narain Singh, before the Prescribe Authority as Annexure- SA 6 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 04.01.1997), filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 4 acres of land. In writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (MIS), copy of objections dated 28.06.1982, filed by Narain Singh, before the Prescribe Authority as Annexure- SA 6 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 04.01.1997), filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 4 acres of land. Similarly, objections dated 28.06.1982, filed before Prescribed Authority on behalf of Smt. Kundi Bai, is annexed as Annexure- SA 5 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 04.06.2002), filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition No. 839 of 2001 (M/S) in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 12 acres of land. And copy of objections dated 28.06.1982, filed before Prescribed Authority on behalf of Gauri Shahkar Mandir Trust, is annexed as SA 15 to the supplementary affidavit (dated 04.06.2002), filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition NO.7 43 of 2001 (MIS), in which it is alleged that the objector is bhumidhar of 10.76 acres of land. 5. The Prescribed Authority appears to have framed following two issues, as is apparent from the judgment and order dated 31.07.1984, passed by said authority in ceiling case No. 10 of 1981-82, on the basis of the above objections, filed by various parties:. Is Krishan Lal in actual cultivation of 62. 76 acres of irrigated land? If so, its effect? 2. Are the parties entitled to any objections? If so, its effect? 6. The oral and documentary evidence appears to have been adduced by the parties, and after hearing them, the Prescribed Authority held that it is Krishan Lal, who got purchased 62.76 acres of land in the name of different persons (including petitioners), and in his own name, and as such, was found in actual cultivation of 62.76 acres of land. The Prescribed Authority further held that the land in question was an irrigated land. It declared 43.59 acres of land as surplus vide its order dated 31-07-1984. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioners (who are objectors before the P.rescribed Authority) and Krishan Lal, preferred appeals under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961). The appeal filed by Krishan Lal appears to have been made leading ceiling appeal. Appeal filed by Hira Kalyan Dass was numbered as Misc. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioners (who are objectors before the P.rescribed Authority) and Krishan Lal, preferred appeals under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961). The appeal filed by Krishan Lal appears to have been made leading ceiling appeal. Appeal filed by Hira Kalyan Dass was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal is Annexure- SA 11 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner of writ petition No. 840 of 2001). The appeal filed by Smt. Kundi Bai was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 154 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal as AnnexureSA 6 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 839 of 2001). Appeal filed by Gauri Shankar Mandir Trust, was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 150 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal is Annexure 2 to the writ petition No. 743 of 2001). Appeal filed by Ram Singh and Vrindawan Gaushala Trust was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 146 of 1984 (copy of memorandum of appeal Annexure S.A. 10 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition NO.7 44 of 2001). All these appeals were filed before District Judge, Dehradun. Power to hear appeal was conferred vide U.P. Act NO.3 of 1986 on Commissioner instead of District Judge, as such, these appeals appear to have been transferred to the court of Commissioner. And Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, decided all the appeal vide impugned order dated 15.03.1990 and dismissed all the appeals after hearing the parties. Hence these writ petitions are filed before Allahabad High Court by the petitioners (who were objectors before the Prescribed Authority) in the year 1990, challenging the order dated 15.03.1990, passed by the appellate authority and also order dated 31.07.1984, passed by the Prescribed Authority. All the four writ petitions are received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for their disposal. 7. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001 (Old No. 18321 of 1990), it is alleged by the petitioner Vrindawan Gaushala Trust that the said trust is a registered body, created in the month of April 1972. All the four writ petitions are received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for their disposal. 7. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001 (Old No. 18321 of 1990), it is alleged by the petitioner Vrindawan Gaushala Trust that the said trust is a registered body, created in the month of April 1972. However, it is admitted that at the time of creation of trust, it was not a registered body and purchased 12 acres of land of kl1asra plot No. 148/2, situated in Village Raiwala. The trust was later on registered. It is pleaded that land owned by this petitioner was admitted to have been purchased earlier by Ram Singh, who transferred the land to the trust. The array of parties, show that this writ petition was filed by the trust through it trustee Kundi Bai. It is alleged in the writ petition that the land of 12 acres was less than the ceiling limit and no statement was required to be filed under Section 9 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1961. 8. In writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (Old No. 18323 of 1990), filed by Hira Kalyan Das it is stated that petitioner is bhumidhar of land measuring 12 acres of khasra plot No. 148/4 of Village Raiwala, which he purchased from Major General Ajit Anil Rudra on 01.05.1973, for a consideration of Rs. 66,000/-. This petitioner has also alleged that the land possessed by him did not exceed the ceiling limit. 9. In writ petition No. 839 of 2001 (Old No. 18324 of 1990), filed by Smt. Kundi Devi, it is stated that she was bhumidhar of Khasra plot No. 148/2M over an area of 12 acres of land in Village Raiwala, which she purchased through sale deed dated 18.94.1972, executed by Smt. Radha Bai, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. This petitioner too has alleged that the land possessed by her did not exceed the ceiling limit. Array of parties of this writ petition, show that later on Kundi Bai Krishan Murari Memorial Trust was created, which is represented by trustee A.K. Mishra through whom Hira Kalyan Das is also represented in his writ petition. 10. 30,000/-. This petitioner too has alleged that the land possessed by her did not exceed the ceiling limit. Array of parties of this writ petition, show that later on Kundi Bai Krishan Murari Memorial Trust was created, which is represented by trustee A.K. Mishra through whom Hira Kalyan Das is also represented in his writ petition. 10. In writ petition NO.7 43 of 2001 (Old No. 18325 of 2001), filed by Gauri Shankar Mandir Trust, represented by its trustee Shri A.K. Mishra,' it is pleaded that the petitioner is a registered trust and owner of 10.76 acres of land of plot No. 148/4 in Village Raiwala. It is further stated in this writ petition that said land was purchased vide sale deed dated 15.11.1973 (executed by one Ram Adhar), for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. This petitioner has also alleged that the land possessed by him is not in excess of the ceiling limit. 11. Ail the petitioners in afore mentioned writ petitions have admitted that they submitted their objections before the Prescribed Authority. After rejection of objections, on merits, all the petitioners filed appeal under Section 13 of UP. Act. No.1 of 1961, and the same are dismissed after hearing the parties, by a common judgment and order. The grounds on which the impugned orders are sought to be quashed, which are common in all the four writ petitions, are as under :1. Because the finding of the courts below that Krishna Lal wasJn cultivatory possession of the disputed land is supported by no evidence. 2. Because merely for the reason that the petitioner's disputed land is adjoining to others land, does snot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner's land belongs to other persons. The observation of the courts below to this effect is imaginary, based on' conjectures and surmises and unsustainable in law. 3. Because land of the petitioners is totally unirrigated land without source of irrigation and the courts below have committed gross illegality in holding so in declaring the surplus land. 4. Because the Prescribed Authority without inspecting the land himself, and merely on the basis of the report of Sadar Kanoongo Sri Afzal Ahmad, has illegally held land of petitioner as irrigated and is being cultivated by Krishna Lal. 5. 4. Because the Prescribed Authority without inspecting the land himself, and merely on the basis of the report of Sadar Kanoongo Sri Afzal Ahmad, has illegally held land of petitioner as irrigated and is being cultivated by Krishna Lal. 5. Because the petitioners have got no land in excess of ceiling limit and the entire proceedings under the Act are uncalled for and vitiated 6. Because the courts bellow have not afforded opportunity to the petitioner to express his/her choice under Section 12-A of the Act to retain the land. 7. Because even otherwise the impugned judgment and orders, passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, are untenable in law and liable to be quashed. 12. Apart from above common grounds, mentioned in the afore mentioned writ petitions in writ petition No. 840 of 2001, 743 of 2001 and 744 of 2001, the impugned orders are challenged also on the following additional grounds :A. Because the courts below have not at all looked into the evidence on record and have wrongly held that the petitioner's vendor, and vendors of other parties and the dates of all the sale deeds are one and the same. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001 and writ petition No. 840 of 2001, further following additional grounds are common : I. Because in any case the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition)Act No. 45 of 1988, as the said Act is retrospective in nature . II. 'Because there is no evidence on record to prove that the disputed land of the petitioner was being cultivated by Krishan Lalor anyone else, as such, the observation of the courts below that Krishan Lal is incharge of cultivating the land of the petitioner is imaginary and off the evidence on record. In writ petition No. 839 of 2001 and writ petition No. 840 of 2001 the impugned orders are also challenged on the ground that land of the petitioners of these cases have nothing to do with the trust and the observation of the courts below in the regard, connecting the land with the trust, in any manner is against the evidence on record. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001, there are couple of other rounds also but in substance its contents are covered by afore mentioned grounds. 13. In writ petition No. 744 of 2001, there are couple of other rounds also but in substance its contents are covered by afore mentioned grounds. 13. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents before Allahabad High Court in the writ petition No. 744 of2001 (old No. 18321 of 1990), writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (Old No. 18323 of 1990), writ petition No. 839 of 2001 (Old No. 18324 of 1990) and writ petition NO.7 43 of 2001 (old No. 18325 of 1990) by Pooran Singh Rana Naib Tehsildar, in February 1991. The contents of these counter affidavits are almost identical. The averments made in the writ petitions are denied and it is stated in the counter affidavits that Krishan Lal the tenure holder was in actual cultivatorv possession of the entire land in question and the deeds of purchases in different names were made fraudulently to save the land from ceiling. It is further stated that the petitioners did not file any statement under U .P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It is further stated that after thorough scrutiny, notices were issued to the petitioners under Section 10 (2) of the Act. And the objections were filed by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority. It is further stated that the transaction regarding purchase of land in different names were found benami, as these transactions were in collusion with the tenure holder Krishan Lal. It is further stated that the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of Benami Transaction (Prohibition)Act, 1988. It is also stated in the counter affidavits that it is wrong to say that the land in question was un irrigated one, rather .the same was found to be irrigated land. On behalf of the respondents, it is also stated in the counter affidavit that due opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners. And the surplus land was rightly declared by the authorities below. 14. After the writ petitions are received by this Court, one additional counter affidavit is filed in the writ petition No. 840 of 2001 (MIS), on behalf of the respondents in which it is stated that when the tenure holder and the petitioners did not turn up, after issuance of the notices, the same were published in the newspaper on 11.04.1982, where after the petitioners filed their objections. It is further stated in para- 4 of this additional counter affidavit filed before this Court in September 2003 that the Government has already taken possession of the surplus land, measuring area of 43.59 acres of land out of which 18.98 acres of land was allotted by Gaon Saniai and approved by Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 27.11.1990 whereafter the allottees were given possession of said land. However, allotment of remaining land measuring 24.70 acres, out of the aforesaid surplus land, through allotted by Gaon Sabha to different allotees but due to the Allahabad High Court's interim order dated 26.03.1993, further proceedings in the matter are Iying staved. 15. In the rejoinder affidavits, filed in the four writ petitions, the petitioners have reiterated the contents of the writ petitions. Supplementary affidavits are also filed in the aforesaid writ petitions, whereby certain documents have been enclosed as annexures in support of the cases of the petitioners. 16. Shri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners made three fold submissions before this Court :In the first submission, his argument was that the petitioners were not duly served with the notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and as such the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the authorities below erred in law in ignoring the provision, contained in Section 4 A of the aforesaid Act, and erred in law in holding that the land in question is irrigated land. Thirdly, it is submitted that the sale deeds, executed in favour of the petitioners by the transferors were bonafide and were saved under Clause (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. 17. Firstly, it is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that no notice was served on the petitioners and non compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 10, on the part of the prescribed authority is fatal to the proceedings in question. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here Section 10 of U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961; which reads as under :"10. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here Section 10 of U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961; which reads as under :"10. Notice to tenure-holders failing to submit a statement or submitting an incomplete or incorrect statement - (1) In every case where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement, required to be submitted under Section 9 the Prescribed Authority shall, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary either by himself or by any person subordinate to him, cause to be prepared a, statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The statement shall in particular indicate the land, if any, exempted under Section 6 and the plot or plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. (2) The Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served upon every such tenure-holder in such manner as may be prescribed a notice together with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-section (1) calling upon him to show cause within a period specified in the notice, why the statement be not taken as correct. The period specified shall not be less than ten days from the date of service of notice." 18. As per the scheme of the Act, if on the date when the general notice was published on the official gazette, a person who was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling limits but later on acquires so is covered by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. The present case pertains to the category covered under the proviso of subsection (2). The scheme of the aforesaid Act further provides that if a tenure holder fails to submit the statement under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority after making enquiry either himself or through a person subordinate to him can get the statement prepared. And under sub-section (2) of Section 10, the Prescribed Authority, is required to issue notices together with the statement, so prepared, to the tenure holder to show cause why the statement be not taken as correct for the purposes of declaring surplus land. It is this notice regarding which it is pressed on behalf of the petitioners that no service is made on the petitioners. As per the respondents case, the tenure holder was Krishan Lal, and notices were sent to him. It is this notice regarding which it is pressed on behalf of the petitioners that no service is made on the petitioners. As per the respondents case, the tenure holder was Krishan Lal, and notices were sent to him. However, since he allegedly avoided the service, as such, the notices were got published in a newspaper. Had there been no objections filed, it could have been said that for the want of service, the petitioners are deprived of the opportunity of being heard before the land is declared surplus. However, in the present case, admittedly petitioners submitted their objections before the Prescribed Authority and adduced evidence in support of their case. It is only after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Prescribed Authority declared surplus land. As such in the opinion of this Court any irregularity in service of notice is not fetal, as the object of the service of notice was to give proper opportunity to the tenure holder to be heard, which in the present case has been given not only to Krishan Lal but also to the petitioners. It is evident from the papers on record that Krishan Lal, filed separate objections while the petitioners also filed their separate objections. They adduced evidence in support of their objections and were heard before the land is declared surplus, as such, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the proceedings are vitiated for want of service of notice, has no force. The cases of Man Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner 1990 R.D. 366 and Shantanu Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 ALR Pg. 564 (Full Bench), referred by the petitioners are of no help to them as in those cases, notices were not issued to the petitioners under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The petitioners in those cases were recorded tenure holders and in that circumstance, the Allahabad High Court held that service of notice on the petitioners was mandatory. In the present case, respondents, stand is that notices were issued to the parties and the petitioners did submit their objections and adduced evidence thereon. 19. Next submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the courts below have wrongly treated the land in question as irrigated one. In the present case, respondents, stand is that notices were issued to the parties and the petitioners did submit their objections and adduced evidence thereon. 19. Next submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the courts below have wrongly treated the land in question as irrigated one. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here Section 4 A of the U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961, which reads as under : "4-A Determination of irrigated land - The Prescribed Authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary, and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of the opinion :firstly (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by(i) any canal included in Schedule NO.1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62- W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (Hi) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in anyone of the aforesaid years; or Secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation Work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under Section 10 ; or Thirdly (a)that any land is situated within the effective command areas of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year: then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act. Explanation 1:- For the purposes of this section the expression 'effective command area means an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated(a) in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli; or (b) in any agricultural year referred to in the clause 'secondly' Explanation /I The ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be relevant for the purpose of this section. Explanation III-Where sugarcane crop was grown on any land in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli it shall be deemed that two crops were grown on it in any of these years, and that the land is capable of growing two crops in agricultural year. " 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that no inspection under Section 4A of the Act was made by the Prescribed Authority nor any of the entries relating to year 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli (calendar years 1970-71,1971-72 and 1972-73) are referred as such, the findings recorded as to the fact that the land in question is irrigated one is erroneous in law, In this connection reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners to the case of Chhabilal Vs. State of U.P. 1994 R.D. Pg. 474 in which learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court has held that without making spot inspection of the land, it cannot be said to be an irrigated land. I have gone through said case law. With due regard to leaned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, this Court is of the view that Section 4 Adoes not mandate the Prescribed Authority to declare the land irrigated only after making local inspection rather the expression used in the Section is 'may also make local inspection where it considers necessary'. This expression itself makes the intention of the legislature abundantly clear that it is only where Prescribed Authority thinks it necessary in the circumstances of a case to come to correct conclusion whether the land is irrigated one it needs to inspect the spot. In the present case Shri Afzal Ahamd, a Supervisory Kanoongo, who was orally examined on behalf of the State has given the statement on oath that he prepared the statement of the land in question with Lekhpal Satya Prakash and Naib Tehsildar Dham Singh Parmar. In the present case Shri Afzal Ahamd, a Supervisory Kanoongo, who was orally examined on behalf of the State has given the statement on oath that he prepared the statement of the land in question with Lekhpal Satya Prakash and Naib Tehsildar Dham Singh Parmar. He has further stated that it was Krishan Lal, who was found getting cultivated the land, measuring 62.76 acres through his Manager (Ram Singh). This witness has further stated on oath on behalf of the State that the land in question used to get irrigated by tube well. The tenure holder Krishan Lal himself in his statement has admitted in the cross examination that he gets the land irrigated and he has means of irrigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders show that they have not considered the Khasra of years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, which is requirement under Section 4-A of the Act and as such, the courts below have erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the land in question is irrigated land. In this connection, reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners to the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978 AWC Pg. 577, in which it has been held that it is obligatory on the part of the Prescribed Authority to consider the Khasras of aforesaid three Fasli years before determining whether the land is irrigated land or not. I have gone through said case law and it pertains to the proceedings drawn in District Etawah (U.P.). Section 1 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, provides that Act shall come into force at once except in the areas mentioned in Section 2. Section 2 of the Act, provides that State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions Act subject to such exceptions or modifications, as the circumstances of the case may require, in areas of Kumaon and Garhwal Divisions t Dehradun is part of Garhwal Division). The land in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1972-73 i.e. prior to 1380 Fasli. Therefore, the entries of 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli or that of 1380 Fasli cannot be said to be relevant for the purposes of the present case, which pertains to District Dehradun. Court cannot take mechanical interpretation of a provision of law. The land in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1972-73 i.e. prior to 1380 Fasli. Therefore, the entries of 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli or that of 1380 Fasli cannot be said to be relevant for the purposes of the present case, which pertains to District Dehradun. Court cannot take mechanical interpretation of a provision of law. Every provision of an Act must be interpreted in furtherance to its object. If 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, mentioned in Section 4 A is not interpreted to include corresponding Fasli years when Act is made applicable to specific area, or when proceedings are drawn under the Act it would defeat very object of ceiling law. Therefore, it appears to be justified on the part of the authorities below to consider the Khasra of years 1386 Fasli, 1387 Fasli and 1388 Fasli in place of 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli. 21. The third argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that sale deeds in favour of the petitioners are not sham nor are they benami, nor got made in the name of the petitioners by tenure holder Krishan La!. In this connection, it is further contended that the courts below have erred in law in treating the transaction of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and creation of the trusts as sham. In my opinion, it is pertinent to refer here statement of Krishan Lal, the tenure holder, recorded by the Prescribed Authority. A copy of said statement is filed as annexure S.A.-8 to the supplementary affidavit. filed on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 840 of 2001. In the cross examination. Krishan Lal. admits that he lives in Hong Kong since 1966. He further admits in the cross examination that farm in question is looked after by his mother (Kundi Ban through her Manager (Ram Sinqh). Copy of statement of Ram Singh is also annexed as Annexure - S.A. 8 to another supplementary affidavit (third). filed on behalf of the petitioners in writ petition No. 840 of 2001. This witness in the cross examination admits that he has no bullocks to plough the fields. He further admits that he gets ploughing done by the tractor of Krishan Lal. He further admits that he has snot paid any amount for taking tractor of Krishan Lal. In the examination in chief. This witness in the cross examination admits that he has no bullocks to plough the fields. He further admits that he gets ploughing done by the tractor of Krishan Lal. He further admits that he has snot paid any amount for taking tractor of Krishan Lal. In the examination in chief. Ram Singh has nowhere stated from where he arranged the money for purchasing the land and what amount was paid by him to purchase the land. allegedly owned by him in respect of which Vrindawan Gaushala Trust is said to have been created. 22. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to subsection (6) of Section 5 of U.P. Act NO.1 of 1961, and argued that petitioners are bonafide purchasers protected under said sub-section. The sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act, reads as under :"(6) 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 this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to (a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred to in subsection (2); . (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an evocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. Explanation 1- 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, 1971; (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. Explanation 11- The burden of proving that a case falls w(thin clause (b) of the proviso, shall rest with the party claming its benefit. In this connections, on behalf of the petitioners, attention of this Court is drawn to principle of law laid down in Brijendra Singh Vs. Explanation 11- The burden of proving that a case falls w(thin clause (b) of the proviso, shall rest with the party claming its benefit. In this connections, on behalf of the petitioners, attention of this Court is drawn to principle of law laid down in Brijendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1981) I Supreme Court Cases Pg. 597, Yadunath Vs. State 1979 AWC Pg. 187 and Mewa Devi Vs. State of U.P. 1978 (4) ALR Pg. 698. I have gone through said case laws. In the present case none of these cases help the petitioners for the reason that from the facts and circumstances, mentioned, as above, it cannot be said that the finding of the courts below that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners are benami, is erroneous in law. Explanation II of subsection (6) of Section 5 of U.P. Act. No.1 of 1961. clearly provides that the burden lies on the party. who alleges that the transaction is not benami. None of the petitioners have adduced evidence showing that the amount of consideration of their sale deeds were arranged and paid by them to the transferors. 23. For the reasons, as discussed above, all the four writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, and are dismissed, as the impugned orders, passed by the courts below suffer from no illegality. No order as to costs.