JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.6.1980 passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Puwayan, Shahjahanpur in Ceiling Case No. 968 and appellate order dated 9.9.1985 in Misc. Civil Appeal (Ceiling) No. 72/80 confirming order under appeal and dismissing the appeal. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the dispute in the present case read as under. 3. In respect to certain plots, numbers whereof are given in para 1 of the writ petition, Rohitash Shah alias Babu Shah and Kirat Shah were recorded co-sirdars. The aforesaid plots situate in Village Bela Pargana Khutar, District Shahjahanpur. Sri Rohitash Shah applied for grant of Bhumidhari rights on 18.5.1967 in respect to his half share in the land in question. The Assistant Collector passed order granting Sanad on 30.5.1969. The co-tenure-holder Kirat Shah raised a dispute that share of Rohitash Shah was one-third and not one-half. 4. The aforesaid dispute was pending in the Revenue Court. In the meantime, on 23.5.1967, i.e. after five days from the date Rohitash Shah had applied for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad, he executed a sale-deed claiming himself to be Bhumidhar in favour of Man Singh son of Basakha Singh and Pooran Singh son of Ladda Mal. The sale-deed dated 23.5.1967 is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently Man Singh and Pooran Singh sold their bhumidhari rights of land purchased by them from Sri Rohitash Shah to Sri Chandan Singh (the petitioner), Surjit Singh, Dilip Singh and Moola Singh vide sale-deed dated 20.12.1968. The petitioner thus claim his right to the land in question pursuant to sale-deed dated 20.12.1968. 5. In the revenue record, however, it appears that name of Rohitash Shah continued. On 29.6.1974, Prescribed Authority issued a notice under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) to Rohitash Shah showing 39.66 acres of total land out of which 0.08 acres was shown as Abadi, 3.77 acres shown as grove and rest “irrigated area”. After deducting permissible ceiling area of 27.90 acres, 9.71 acres land was shown surplus. 6. Surjit Singh, brother of petitioner, moved an application on 1.1.1975 requesting for his impleadment in the above ceiling proceedings but this application was rejected on 1.1.1975. After deducting permissible ceiling area of 27.90 acres, 9.71 acres land was shown surplus. 6. Surjit Singh, brother of petitioner, moved an application on 1.1.1975 requesting for his impleadment in the above ceiling proceedings but this application was rejected on 1.1.1975. An objection was also filed by Sri Rohitash Shah on 16.9.1974 which was also rejected by Prescribed Authority on 4.2.1975 and he declared 9.71 acres of “irrigated area” as surplus. Surjit Singh filed appeal No. 457 of 1975 and Rohitash Shah filed appeal No. 497 of 1975. Both these appeals were allowed vide judgment dated 22.9.1975. The matter was remanded to Prescribed Authority directing him to allow impleadment of Surjit Singh and decide the matter afresh. Prescribed Authority, however, vide order dated 5.7.1976 rejected claim of Surjit Singh giving no weight to the sale-deed executed in his favour alongwith others but partly allowed objection of Sri Rohitash Shah reducing the area of surplus land which was earlier declared and now it was confined to 8.29 acres of irrigated area. 7. Now, two sons of Rohitash Shah namely Gyanendra Shah and Mahendra Shah filed appeal No. 302 of 1976 since in the meantime Rohitash Shah died. Surjit Singh also filed appeal No. 23 of 1977. The appeal of Surjit Singh was dismissed on 26.3.1977 while appeal filed by two sons of Rohitash Shah was partly allowed on 7.1.1977. Surjit filed writ petition No. 2549 of 1977 (Surjit Singh v. State of U.P.) which was dismissed on 11.7.1979. 8. The petitioner claimed knowledge of the above ceiling proceedings in 1979 and that the land possessed by him has been declared surplus without issuing any notice to him. He filed objection alongwith affidavit and application for condonation of delay on 18.10.1979 and an affidavit was also filed on 6.12.1979. The aforesaid objection of petitioner was rejected by Prescribed Authority on 26.6.1980 whereagainst an appeal No. 72 of 1980 was preferred which was allowed on 20.8.1981. The appellate authority held that under Section 11(2) of 1960 Act, an objection can be filed by any person, who claims to be a tenure-holder but his land has been declared surplus without issuing any notice him and the fact whether his name is recorded in revenue record or not would make no difference. The appellate authority held that under Section 11(2) of 1960 Act, an objection can be filed by any person, who claims to be a tenure-holder but his land has been declared surplus without issuing any notice him and the fact whether his name is recorded in revenue record or not would make no difference. He also considered the question whether objection filed by petitioner was barred by limitation or not and observed that limitation would commence from the date of knowledge and unless positive evidence is adduced to demonstrate that incumbent had knowledge, question of holding application barred by limitation would not arise. In order to consider both these questions, the matter was remanded. Further, in the meantime, two sons and another co-tenure-holder of Sri Rohitash Shah namely Gyanendra Shah, Mahendra Shah and Kirat Shah who had filed writ petition No. 15393 of 1981 against appellate order dated 20.8.1981, the same was decided by this Court on 4.5.1984 observing that before considering objection of petitioner (Chandan Singh), the foremost important question was whether Chandan Singh was a co-tenure-holder or not. The Court required to consider this question first. Hence, the appellate order was set aside and remanded to the appellate authority. The appeal was reheard and this time it was dismissed by order dated 9.9.1985, which is impugned in this writ petition. 9. The appellate authority has found that petitioner is not co-tenure-holder hence was not entitled to file objection under Section 11(2) of 1960 Act. In order to arrive at the said finding, appellate authority has held that the date on which Sri Rohitash Shah claimed to have sold his Sirdari land claiming himself with Bhumidhari rights, to Sri Man Singh and Pooran Singh, in fact, he had no such Bhumidhari rights at all. Hence there was no legal transfer of holding in favour of Man Singh and Pooran Singh. They did not get any title hence further transfer of land by them to petitioner and others is also of no consequence. He has also said that even if the petitioner has any semblance of right on the land in question, objection is barred by limitation since petitioner’s brother had contested ceiling proceedings which were finalized upto the stage of this Court and petitioner was a witness to a notice served upon his brother hence it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the proceedings. 10. 10. It is submitted by Sri N.B.Nigam referring to the pleadings made in para 21 of the writ petition that Sri Rohitash had applied for grant of Sanad with respect to bhumidhari rights on 18.5.1967 under Section 134 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “1951 Act”) and the aforesaid Sanad was actually granted on 30.5.1969. The effect thereof would be that Bhumidhari rights would stand conferred upon Rohitash Shah from the date of application namely 18.5.1967 and therefore, all subsequent transaction relating to transfer of Bhumidhari right by execution of sale-deed are also valid. It is pointed out that another co-tenure-holder Kirat Shah moved an application under Section 137 of 1951 Act on 2.6.1969 for cancellation of Sanad dated 30.5.1969 on the ground that Rohitash had only one-third share and not one-half. The said application was rejected on 9.10.1969 whereagainst he filed appeal which was treated to be revision by Board of Revenue and was allowed vide order dated 9.5.1975 directing Assistant Collector to re-consider the matter afresh. Sri Kirat Shah filed a review application which was rejected by Board of Revenue on 5.7.1982. In the meantime, U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977) has been promulgated w.e.f. 28.1.1977 whereby bhumidhari rights have been conferred upon all Sirdars with retrospective effect and all pending proceedings for grant of Sanad stood abated. This also has the result of validating sale-deed executed by Sri Rohitash in favour of Man Singh and Pooran Singh and consequential transfer of right in favour of petitioner. 11. Sri N.B. Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on a decision of Apex Court in Deo Nandan and another v. Ram Saran and others, AIR 2000 SC 1192 , wherein the Apex Court held that a certificate granted under Section 137 of Act 1951 would relate back to the date of application under Section 134 and therefore sale-deed executed after moving application under Section 134 and deposit of amount, as provided therein would be valid, and, merely if there was no mutation in revenue record or that Sanad was granted subsequently, the rights of transferees cannot be defeated. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has to supported impugned orders relying on the reasons stated therein. 13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 14. 12. Learned Standing Counsel has to supported impugned orders relying on the reasons stated therein. 13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 14. There is no dispute about the fact that the land in question was co-tenure holding of Rohitash Shah and Kirat Shah. The extent of share might have been disputed between them but their share in the property is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that one of the co-tenure-holder namely Rohitash Shah moved an application under Section 134 of Act 1951 for grant of Sanad with respect to bhumidhari rights of the land in question to the extent of his share on 18.5.1967. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any deficiency or procedural error in the said application. The application was allowed and Sanad was actually granted under Section 137 by order dated 20.5.1969. The decision of Apex Court in Deo Nandan (supra) very categorical and in view thereof it cannot be disputed that bhumidhari rights stood conferred upon Sri Rohitash Shah in respect to land in question to the extent of his share w.e.f. 18.5.1967. 15. That being so, subsequent execution of sale-deed by Sri Rohitash Shah to the extent it relates to his share in the property in question cannot be said to be illegal, inoperative or inconsequential in law. That would have the effect of valid transfer of bhumidhari rights in favour of transferees. 16. Now coming to the second aspect of the matter regarding limitation, this Court find that appellate Court has mainly relied on the fact that petitioner’s brother Surjit Singh was engaged in ceiling proceedings actively and has contested the matter, therefore, knowledge to petitioner can safely be presumed. He has also drawn support from the fact that in respect to one notice, name of the petitioner is shown as a witness. The findings of Appellate Court in this regard are not satisfactory and difficult to sustain. The mere fact that a person related to petitioner had contested ceiling proceedings would not necessarily result in presuming that petitioner had knowledge of proceedings. The knowledge means active knowledge that some kind of litigation is going on and not the bare factum of some litigation. The mere fact that a person related to petitioner had contested ceiling proceedings would not necessarily result in presuming that petitioner had knowledge of proceedings. The knowledge means active knowledge that some kind of litigation is going on and not the bare factum of some litigation. Moreover, the fact that one is a witness to service of notice upon petitioner’s one of the brother would not necessarily mean that the witness is aware of the dispute also. A witness regarding notice of a document cannot be said to be a witness of the contents of that document. The responsibilities of witness is only to the extent that document in question was served upon the person concerned but what the document contained and that contents are also within the knowledge of the witness cannot be presumed unless shown that contents were also read over to the witness and he understood the same either on being read by somebody else or having read himself. No such finding has been recorded by Courts below. 17. In the circumstances, in my view, the impugned orders cannot sustain. Since this Court has taken the view that petitioner cannot be said to be a stranger for the property in question but is a person having validly acquired rights in the property in question and is a co-tenure-holder with others, he had right to file objections and therefore his objection deserve to be considered and decided by the Prescribed Authority on merits. 18. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.6.1980 and 9.9.1985 (Annexure 5 and 8 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider and decide petitioner’s objections dated 18.10.1979 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. ———————