JUDGMENT Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar and subject matter of both the writ petitions is the same land measuring 67 Acre, 15 Biswa of Khasra No. 148/5 of village Shahdaura, Tahsil Kichcha, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Both these writ petitions were preferred by Smt. Sheela Devi, daughter of late Madan Gopal, resident of village Sahadoura, Tehsil Kichha, district Nainital, who died during the pendency of writ petitions, and she was substituted by petitioner no. 2 1/1 Raman Rekhi and petitioner no. 1/2 Aman Rekhi, sons of Jagdish Gopal vide order dated 5-6-2006 passed by this Court. The respondent no. 4 Jagdish had also died during the pendency of writ petition no. 4837 of 2001. His name has been deleted by order dated 27-10-2006 passed by this Court. 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the land measuring 10.8 Hectares of respondent no.4- Jadgish was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-7-1980. According to the petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased), the said surplus land included the land measuring 67 Acre, 15 Biswa of Khasra No. 148/5 of Khatauni Khata No. 257 of village Shahdaura, Tahsil Kichcha (Nainital), which was alleged gifted by respondent no.4 Jagdish son of Sri Madan Gopal in favour of petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) by gift-deed dated 20-1-1972. The petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) in Writ Petition No.4837 of 2001 (M/S) has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court on that sole ground. In the other petition (Writ Petition M/S No. 4705 of 2001), she claimed the disputed land out of scope of ceiling by virtue of gift-deed allegedly executed by the tenure holder-Jagdish in the year 1972. 4. Writ Petition No. 4837 of 2001 (M/S) has been filed for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31-3-1986 and 30-3-1990 (Annexure III and IV) passed by Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority respectively. 5. Writ Petition No. 4705 of 2001 (M/S) has been filed for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-2-1991 in Ceiling Case No. 16/16 of 1984-85 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaun Division Nainital. 6. Relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition no. 5. Writ Petition No. 4705 of 2001 (M/S) has been filed for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-2-1991 in Ceiling Case No. 16/16 of 1984-85 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaun Division Nainital. 6. Relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition no. 4837 of 2001, in brief, according to the petitioners, are that the petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) was a tenure holder and her name was recorded as Bhumidhar in Khatauni Khata no. 257. Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act) was issued to respondent no.4 on 31-12-74, who filed objection before the Prescribed Authority. Ultimately land measuring 10.8 Hectares was declared surplus vacant land vide order dated 10-6-1976. Aggrieved, the respondent no. 4 preferred two appeals before the Civil Judge, Nainital, which were dismissed vide order dated 15-9-1977. The respondent no. 4 went up in Writ Petition No. 4167 of 1977 before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 17-5- 1979 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. 7. After remand of the case, the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-7-1980 again declared 85.04 Bighas land as surplus vacant land in possession of respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 again preferred appeal, which was ultimately dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital by order dated 17-12-1980. A writ petition no. 3556 of 1981 was preferred before the Allahabad High Court, which too was dismissed on 15-4-1981. 8. The respondent no. 4 filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, but no interim order was passed therein. The respondent no. 4 gave choice to the Prescribed Authority in respect of the land held by the petitioner but without informing the deceased petitioner. When the petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) came to know that the respondent no. 4 had given choice of her land, she moved an application under Section 13(A) of the Act on 22-9-1982 before the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the order dated 28-7-1980 was passed without the knowledge of the petitioner. No notice under Rule 8 of the Ceiling Rules was issued to the petitioner, therefore, she be impleaded as party and the order be passed on merit. The learned Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-12-1982 rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 13(A) of the Act. No notice under Rule 8 of the Ceiling Rules was issued to the petitioner, therefore, she be impleaded as party and the order be passed on merit. The learned Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-12-1982 rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 13(A) of the Act. The petitioner then filed an appeal (Ceiling Appeal No. 130 of 1982) before the appellate court. The appellate court by its order dated 28-5-1985 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal with a direction to record a definite finding as the whether the petitioner had become Bhumidhar of the disputed land prior to 1380 Fasli or not. 9. After remand of the case, the Prescribed Authority passed an order-dated 31.3.1986 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the name of petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records prior to 1380 Fasli. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Commissioner Kumaun Division Nainital against the said order. The appeal too was dismissed by order dated 30-3-1990. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 10. Relevant facts leading to writ petition no. 4705 of 2001, in brief, are that the petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) moved an application on 16-8-1985 before the Additional Commissioner, which was registered as Misc. Ceiling Application No. 16/16 of 1984-85 Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. Sri Chhedalal and others, alleging therein that the land of Khasra No. 148/5 area 67 Bigha 15 Biswa was given by gift deed dated 20-1-1972 from Sri Jagdish Rekhi. It was also alleged that the said land had been recorded in her name in the revenue records but in ceiling proceedings the said land had been wrongly allotted to different persons. 11. The learned Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties did not find favour with the contention of the petitioner and passed the order dated 11-2-1991, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material on record. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputed land was gifted to the deceased petitioner Sheela Devi by gift-deed dated 20-1-1972 executed by the tenure holder Jagdish Rekhi, therefore, the said land could not have been declared as surplus from the land of the tenure holder. 14. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputed land was gifted to the deceased petitioner Sheela Devi by gift-deed dated 20-1-1972 executed by the tenure holder Jagdish Rekhi, therefore, the said land could not have been declared as surplus from the land of the tenure holder. 14. The short controversy to be decided in these writ petitions is whether the alleged gift-deed made by the tenure holder Jagdish, in favour of petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) on 20-1-1972, i.e. after 24.1.1971, is of any help to the petitioners or not. 15. I have given my anxious thought to the controversy involved in these writ petitions and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 16. So far as the gift-deed dated 20-1-1972 made by tenure holder Jagdish, who was arrayed as respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 4837 of 2001, is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners in view of the Apex Court verdict in the case of Km. Sonia Bhatia Vs. State of U.P. and others [(1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 585]. In that case, the Apex Court has considered and interpreted the provisions of Section 5(6) proviso (b) (as introduced by U.P. Act 18 of 1973) of the Act. The Apex Court has approved the observations made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 915 of 1975, Fateh Mohammad Vs. District Judge, decided on July 10, 1978. In paragraph no. 27 the following observations were made:- "27. In the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court referred to above, after a consideration of a large number of authorities the following observations were made: The legislature while enacting the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, was alive to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with the transfer of immovable property. The terms 'transfer', 'sale', 'mortgage' and 'lease' have not been defined in the Act. Therefore, these terms must have been used only in the sense in which they have been used in the Transfer of Property Act. If the legislature intended to use those terms in a different sense and with a different connotation, it would have defined those terms in the Act. But that has not been done . Therefore, these terms must have been used only in the sense in which they have been used in the Transfer of Property Act. If the legislature intended to use those terms in a different sense and with a different connotation, it would have defined those terms in the Act. But that has not been done . The legislature, however, thought that there may be genuine and bona fide transfers for consideration. To protect such tenure holders and other transfers, proviso (b) to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act was enacted. It saved transfers for adequate consideration. Gift is a gratuitous transfer and there is no consideration which obviously means valuable consideration. If transfer for love and affection is taken to be a transfer for consideration then the purpose of the Act would be completely defeated as the tenure holders would transfer their land by gift after January 24, 1971." 17. It is not disputed that the alleged gift was made by the tenure holder Jagdish in favour of petitioner Sheela Devi (since deceased) on 20-1-1972, i.e. after 24th January 1971. The said gift could not have been taken into account. The protection of proviso (b) to sub-section (6) of Section 5 could not be extended to the petitioners, because it saved transfers for adequate consideration, and there is no consideration in the gift deed which obviously means valuable consideration, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Km. Sonia Bhatia (supra) as well as the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Fateh Mohammad (supra). Therefore, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court has rightly ignored the gift deed allegedly executed on 20-1-1972. The impugned orders passed by the courts below in both the writ petitions do not call for any interference by this Court in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitions being devoid of merit must fail. 18. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. Costs easy. 19. The interim orders dated 11-7-1990 and 9-8-1991 passed by the Allahabad High Court in these writ petitions are vacated.