JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by S/sri A.K. Singh, Alok Kumar Yadav, A.B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in the Bunch and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MDA") and Sri Sanjay Kumar Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State. 2. Writ Petition No. 3905 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "First Petition") has arisen from judgment and order dated 19.11.1986 (Annex-ure-8 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Authority") in Appeal No. 53 of 1985-86, declaring 747 bigha 17 biswa and 17 biswansi land as surplus and confirming order dated 30.1.1982 passed by Prescribed Authority, Meerut in Case No. 3 under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1960"). 3. Petitioner- M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Limited, Baghpat Road, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner-Company") was running a Sugar Mill which was taken over by State Government under the provisions of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971"). Petitioner-Company also owned an Agricultural Farm known as "Pootha Farm" and another Unit namely "Straw Board" which continued under the management of Petitioner-Company. 4. A notice under Section 10(2) of Act, 1960 was issued to Petitioner-Company by Prescribed Authority, proposing to declare 723.3 bighas land as surplus. Petitioner-Company filed writ petition before this Court challenging vires of Act, 1960 but that writ petition was ultimately dismissed in 1975. 5. Thereafter, fresh notice was issued under Section 10(2), proposing to declare 750 bigha, 16 biswa and 13 biswansi land as surplus. Objection dated 20.3.1986 was filed by Petitioner-Company, taking, besides other, a ground that out of 750 bighas, it has already transferred 239 bighas land to various persons and that land should not be taken into consideration to determine surplus land under Act, 1960. It also said that land is situate in Maliana which has come within the Municipal limit of Meerut, therefore, Act, 1960 is not applicable to the said land. Further objection was that 663 bighas of land was "Grove", hence, petitioner was entitled to concession under Section 4(1) of Act, 1960. 6. However, Prescribed Authority passed order dated 22.2.1977, rejected objection and declared 750 bigha 16 biswa 17 biswansi (Irrigated) land as surplus. Further objection was that 663 bighas of land was "Grove", hence, petitioner was entitled to concession under Section 4(1) of Act, 1960. 6. However, Prescribed Authority passed order dated 22.2.1977, rejected objection and declared 750 bigha 16 biswa 17 biswansi (Irrigated) land as surplus. Against order dated 22.2.1977, an appeal was filed which was allowed vide order dated 6.10.1980 on the ground that several Transferees, who were interested persons, were not given notice and, therefore, order of Prescribed Authority is not sustainable and matter was remanded. 7. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority issued notices to Transferees who purchased land from petitioner between 9.11.1971 to 1974. Objections were filed that transfer of land is in good faith and on adequate consideration. On behalf of Petitioner-Company, an objection was taken that certain land was transferred with the permission of this Court. It was pointed out that in 1970, entire land of Petitioner-Company's Sugar Mill and that of "Pootha Farm" Was attached for recovery of arrears of cane price and purchase tax. Petitioner-Company came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 2155 of 1970 challenging order of attachment and appointment of Receiver. An interim order was passed therein directing Respondents-Authorities to continue with attachment but Petitioner-Company was permitted to liquidate dues in installments. 8. By another order dated 23.10.1970, this Court granted permission to petitioner to sell agricultural land subject to approval of District Magistrate. After obtaining permission from High Court, Petitioner-Company settled to transfer 48 bigha 9 biswa 12 biswansi land for consideration of Rs. 2,42,150/-. Regarding valuation, there was some difference between petitioner and District Magistrate, hence, Petitioner-Company again came to this Court and vide order dated 19.8.1971, this Court permitted Petitioner-Company to sell 48 bigha 9 biswa and 12 biswansi land for consideration of Rs. 2,42,150/-. 9. Petitioner-Company further executed 21 sale-deeds between 9.11.1971 to 24.4.1972 and thereafter 35 sale-deeds were executed between 16.1.1974 to 26.1.1974. It is claimed that all these transactions were in good faith and genuine and also for adequate consideration; Possession of land was immediately transferred to Transferees and since then, Transferees are in actual physical possession of transferred land. A further objection was taken that there had commenced consolidation proceedings in which total area of Petitioner-Company's land has reduced, therefore, it is entitled to adjustment of such reduced area. 10. A further objection was taken that there had commenced consolidation proceedings in which total area of Petitioner-Company's land has reduced, therefore, it is entitled to adjustment of such reduced area. 10. However, Prescribed Authority passed order dated 30.1.1982, declaring 747 bigha 17 biswa and 7 biswansi land as surplus. Prescribed Authority has held that all sale-deeds executed by petitioner, except for a small area of 3 bighas, were sham, benami transactions and not for adequate consideration. 11. Against order dated 30.1.1982 passed by Prescribed Authority, five Appeals No. 52/1985, 53/1985, 76/85, 77/85 and 78, 85 were filed by Petitioner-Company and some transferees in whose favour land was transferred by Petitioner-Company by sale. Appeals No. 52/85-86, 77/85-86, -78/85-86 were decided by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 19.11.1986 and it dismissed all three appeals. 12. Appeals No. 76/85-86 was dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.1.1988. 13. Petitioner-Company has challenged Appellate Order dated 19.11.1986 in First Petition. 14. Writ Petition No. 3496 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Third Petition") has been filed by Sri Lalit Lamba and others who have purchased some land measuring 48-8-12 vide sale-deed dated 28.10.1971 from M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills pursuant to permission granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2155 of 1970. They are transferees of some part of disputed property. They claim that transactions of sale in their case were bona fide and for adequate consideration having approval of this Court, thus the land purchased by them has to be excluded. 15. A chart giving details of writ petitions number, name of petitioners, details of disputed area, details of order of Prescribed Authority and that of Appellate Authority are given as under: S. No. Writ Petition No. First Appellant Area of disputed land Case No. and Date of Final Order of Prescribed Authority Appeal No. and Date of Final Order of Ist Appellate Authority Particulars 1 3905/87 Jaswant Sugar Mill 747-17-7 Case .../1974 22.2.77 declaring 750 bighas land surplus 30.1.1982 (pursuant to Appellate Order dated 06.10.1980) declaring 747-17-7 as surplus land R.A. 71/1977 6.10.80 (setting aside order of P.A. & remanding the matter) Appeal No. 53/1985-86, 19.11.86, Appellate Authority (Commissioner) dismissed appeal. W.P.2155/70 against attachment of petitioner's property and appointment of Receiver vide order dt. 23.10.70, petitioner was granted permission to sell agricultural land and petitioner executed 35 sale deeds. W.P.2155/70 against attachment of petitioner's property and appointment of Receiver vide order dt. 23.10.70, petitioner was granted permission to sell agricultural land and petitioner executed 35 sale deeds. 2 3002/87 Smt. Shanti Devi and Others Shanti Devi (P-1) Ram Rati (P-2) Naubat Singh, Raghubir Singh, Shesh Pal Singh, Rajpal Singh (Ps-3 to 6) Sri Prakash, Jai Kishun, Brahmapal Singh (Ps-7 to 9) Total land declared surplus 747-17-5 3-8-0 ) ) ) 3-4-0 ) ) ) ) ) ) 10-1-10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4-16-0 ) Order dt. 30.01.1982 declaring 747-17-5 bigha land surplus Objections of petitioners- 1 to 9 rejected. Appeal No. 77/1985-86 19.11.86, Appellate Authority (Commissioner) dismissed appeal. Writ petition was dismissed on 09.09.2009 3 3156/87 Jagat Singh and Others Jagat Singh (P-1) Jagbir Singh (P-2) Sarad Pal, Rishipal, Harpal (P-3 to 5) Dal Singh (P-6) Raja Ram, Dhanpal (P- 7 & 8) Total land declared surplus 747-17-5 8-3-0 3-18-0 5-5-0 2-12-15 20-11-16 Order dt. 30.01.1982 declaring 747-17-5 bigha land surplus Objections of petitioners- 1 to 8 rejected. Appeal No. 78/1985-86 19.11.86, Appellate Authority (Commissioner) dismissed appeal. --- 4 3496/88 Lalit Lamba & 3 Others Petitioners joint land 48-8-12 Order dt. 30.01.1982 declaring 747-17-5 bigha land surplus Objections of petitioners- 1 to 4 rejected. Appeal No. 76/1985 15.01.88, Appellate Authority (Commissioner) dismissed appeal. --- 16. In the above writ petitions, while entertaining the same, this Court passed interim orders on various dates, details whereof are given as under: Writ Petition No. Interim Order 3905 of 1987 ---- 3156 of 1987 12.2.1987: Until further orders of this Court the petitioners may not be evicted from the land in their occupation. 3496 of 1988 14.3.1988: Meanwhile petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 5151 of 2006 27.1.2006: Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in Land Acquisition Reference No. 442 of 1992 (M/s Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. vs. Vijai Kumar Gupta and Others) pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Meerut shall be kept in abeyance. 69578 of 2005 11.11.2005: Till the next date of listing further proceeding in Reference No. 84 of 1993 (Jaswant Sugar Mill vs. State of U.P. and Others) shall be kept in abeyance. 17. 69578 of 2005 11.11.2005: Till the next date of listing further proceeding in Reference No. 84 of 1993 (Jaswant Sugar Mill vs. State of U.P. and Others) shall be kept in abeyance. 17. Consequent thereto, it is said that possession of surplus land in Second and Third writ petitions could not be taken by Collector and, therefore, land did not vest in State Government under Section 14 of Act, 1960. 18. During pendency of above writ petitions, MDA sought acquisition of land in Village Sundera @ Pintha Maliyana Kunda Dongrawali and Ghat, Meerut and on its request acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") proposing to acquire 250.998 acres of land. Notification under Section 4 was published in Government Gazette dated 14.8.1987 and declaration under Section 6 was published in Gazette dated 4.9.1987. Award was made by Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") on 22.2.1990. By aforesaid acquisition, 401-11-18-18 (250.998 acres) land was acquired. Possession of acquired land from Petitioner-Company was taken by Collector under the provisions of Act, 1894 on 23.3.1991 and then it was transferred to MDA. 19. It is contended that acquired land has to be "excluded" while considering surplus land of Petitioner-Company from total land possessed by it. Secondly, it is contended that transfer of land made with permission of this Court cannot be doubted as that transfer was for adequate consideration and sale-deed dated 28.10.1971, transferring 48-8-12 land to Brigadier Karam Vir Lamba and others has to be excluded and cannot be treated to be an illegal transfer of land. 20. Writ Petition No. 3002 of 1987 was filed by 9 petitioners who purchased land from Petitioner-Company after prescribed date i.e., 24.1.1971 and their sale-deeds have not been held to be valid by Ceiling Authorities. They have challenged Appellate order dated 19.11.1986. Details of sale-deeds and area of land purchased by petitioners in Second Petition are given as under: Name of Petitioner Date of Sale Deed Area of Land Amount of consideration Smt. Shanti Devi (P-1) 08.11.74 3-8-0 Rs.21,420/- Smt. Ram Rati (P-2) 30.9.74 3-4-0 Rs.15,680/- Naubat Singh (P-3) Raghubir Singh (P-4) Shesh Pal Singh (P-5) Raj Pal Singh (P-6) 24.4.74 10-1-10 Rs.49,367/- Sri Prakash (P-7) Jai Kishun (P-8) Sri Brahmapal Singh (P-9) 31.8.74 4-16-0 Rs. 23,520/- 21. 23,520/- 21. Their basic contention is that land was purchased by them for adequate consideration, therefore, holding sale-deeds of these petitioners illegal, was not justified. However, this writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.9.2009, therefore, I find no occasion to deal with it. 22. Writ Petition No. 3156 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Petition") has also been filed by 8 petitioners who purchased land from Petitioner-Company in 1972. They have also assailed Appellate order dated 19.11.1986. Details of petitioners, sale-deed, area of land etc. are given as under: Name of Petitioner Date of Sale Deed Area of Land Amount of consideration Jagdish Singh (P-1) 03.4.72 8-3-0 Rs.35,656.25/- Jagbir Singh (P-2) 10.4.72 3-18-0 Rs. 17,062/- Sharad Pal (P-3), Rishi Pal (P-4), Harpal (P-5) In 1972 5-5-0 Rs.22,968.75/- Dal Singh (P-6) 03.4.72 2-12-15 Rs. 11,539/- Raja Ram (P-7) Dhanpal (P-8) 14.1.72 20-11-16 -- 23. Writ Petition No. 5151 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Fourth Petition") has been filed by MDA stating that Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) vide order dated 30.1.1982, declared 747-17-5 bigha irrigated land of Petitioner-Company as surplus. During pendency of ceiling proceedings, Petitioner-Company sold land of different area to respondents-2 to 35. Prescribed Authority held that all these sale-deeds are liable to be ignored having been executed after appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. Appeal preferred against Prescribed Authority's order dated 30.1.1982 was dismissed by Appellate Court vide order dated 19.11.1986. Surplus land was taken into possession by State Government and allotted to MDA for construction of Housing Colony namely, Ved Vyas Housing Colony. There was an acute need of Housing Colony in Meerut, hence a notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued on 14.8.1987 and declaration was made under Section 6 on 4.9.1987. Thereafter, award was given by SLAO on 22.2.1990. Though acquired land was recorded in the names of respondents-2 to 35, but respondent-1 i.e. Petitioner-Company filed an application claiming compensation to itself on the ground that sale-deeds executed were not found valid and compensation should be given to him. It was registered as Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No. 442 of 1992 under Section 30 of Act, 1894. Against ceiling orders, respondent-1, Petitioner-Company has filed Writ Petition No. 3905 of 1987 but MDA was not impleaded therein though land was allotted to MDA, therefore, it was a necessary party. It was registered as Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No. 442 of 1992 under Section 30 of Act, 1894. Against ceiling orders, respondent-1, Petitioner-Company has filed Writ Petition No. 3905 of 1987 but MDA was not impleaded therein though land was allotted to MDA, therefore, it was a necessary party. Before Reference Court, in the proceedings under Section 30, respondents 2 to 35 had filed their written statements. Before Reference Court also, MDA was not impleaded. Consequently, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed by MDA before Reference Court. This application was opposed by respondent-1 i.e Petitioner-Company and, thereafter, learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut vide order dated 3.12.2005, rejected MDA's application on the ground that under Section 30, issue is between two parties as to who is entitled to claim compensation and, therefore, neither State Government nor MDA is necessary or proper party. It is this order passed by Reference Court in LAR No. 442 of 1992 which has been challenged by MDA in Fourth Petition. 24. Writ Petition No. 69578 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Fifth Petition") has also been filed by MDA. 25. Besides other facts which I have already noticed above, it is also worthy to notice that challenging acquisition Notifications dated 14.8.1987 and 4.9.1987, respondent-1 i.e Petitioner-Company filed Writ Petition No. 20754 of 1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.10.1991 following earlier judgment dated 11.9.1991 in Writ Petition No. 18896 of 1986. Thereafter, respondent-1/e. Petitioner-Company filed LAR No. 84 of 1993 for determination of market value for payment of compensation under Act, 1894, being dissatisfied with compensation determined by award dated 22.10.1990 by SLAO. MDA took the view that since ceiling proceedings were earlier finalized therefore, compensation should be determined under Act, 1960 and not under Act, 1894 but that objection was rejected by Reference Court vide order dated 25.7.2005 and it is this order which has been challenged in Fifth Petition. 26. MDA took the view that since ceiling proceedings were earlier finalized therefore, compensation should be determined under Act, 1960 and not under Act, 1894 but that objection was rejected by Reference Court vide order dated 25.7.2005 and it is this order which has been challenged in Fifth Petition. 26. Before this Court, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill mainly contended: (i) Ceiling Authorities have erred in law in holding sale-deed executed by Petitioner-Company in respect of land, Area 48-2-0 in favour of Brigadier Karam Vir Lamba and others as a transfer after 24.1.1971 without considering the fact that this transfer was for adequate consideration and factum of adequate consideration could not have been taken otherwise by Ceiling Authorities for the reason that consideration amount was duly approved by Collector and thereafter, with permission of this Court, aforesaid sale-deed was executed, therefore, non exclusion of above sale-deed is bad. (ii) In respect of other sale-deeds also though same were executed after 24.1.1971 but there is no material to show that transaction was not for adequate consideration. Hence, non exclusion of those sale-deeds is bad in law. (iii) Ceiling proceedings did not conclude for the reason that interim order was passed by this Court as a result whereof possession of surplus land declared by Ceiling Authorities could not be taken by Prescribed Authority and in the meantime, during pendency of writ petition, substantial part of alleged surplus land has been acquired under Act, 1894 by MDA hence that land has to be excluded and the same has to be dealt with under Act, 1894. 27. In respect of writ petitions filed by MDA, it is contended by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Petitioner-Company that possession was not taken by State under Section 14 of Act, 1960 and instead, after acquisition, possession was taken and handed over to MDA, therefore, compensation has to be determined under Act, 1894. Further, all sale-deeds, if excluded, then compensation is payable to Petitioner-Company, otherwise, since petitioners of Second and Third Writ Petitions are recorded tenure-holders, compensation may be paid to them. 28. Further, all sale-deeds, if excluded, then compensation is payable to Petitioner-Company, otherwise, since petitioners of Second and Third Writ Petitions are recorded tenure-holders, compensation may be paid to them. 28. Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel submitted on behalf of MDA that ceiling proceedings were already concluded and, therefore, it must be held that subsequent acquisition did not change the status of land and would not confer any additional benefit on petitioners of first to third petitions, therefore, land declared surplus must be deemed to have vested in State and validly transferred to MDA and compensation is payable at the best under the provisions of Act, 1960. 29. After long drawn arguments of learned counsel for parties at the Bar, in all these writ petitions this Court finds that it has to answer following questions: (i) Whether ceiling proceedings can be said to have been completed resulting in vesting of declared surplus land in State. (ii) Whether sale-deeds which was/were executed by Petitioner-Company, M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill for the amount of consideration approved by Collector and with permission of this Court, could have been ignored by Prescribed Authority only on the ground that sale-deed was executed after cutoff date i.e. 24.1.1971. (iii) Whether various sale-deeds other than the one covered by question-(ii), have rightly been excluded by Prescribed Authority and whether the transactions were not for adequate consideration and this finding of Ceiling Authorities is based on valid evidence. (iv) Whether MDA got land transferred after acquisition under Act, 1894 or being surplus land having vested in State, was transferred to MDA. (v) Whether land transferred to MDA will be governed by Act, 1894 or Act, 1960. 30. To answer question-1, it has to be seen as to when land would vest in State under the provisions of Act, 1960. Section 12 of Act, 1960 deals with determination of surplus land by Prescribed Authority where an objection is filed and provides that subject to an Appellate Order under Section 13, order of Prescribed Authority under sub-Section (1) shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any Court of law. 31. Section 12-A of Act, 1960 provides that before taking possession of land, declared surplus, a choice shall be given to Tenure-Holder to decide as to which land he would like to retain and which land he would like to surrender. 32. 31. Section 12-A of Act, 1960 provides that before taking possession of land, declared surplus, a choice shall be given to Tenure-Holder to decide as to which land he would like to retain and which land he would like to surrender. 32. Section 13 of Act, 1960 deals with Appeal and Section 13-A deals with Redetermination of surplus land in certain cases which includes rectification or mistake apparent on the face of record. 33. Then comes crucial provision i.e. Section 14 which deals with acquisition of surplus land. It says that Collector shall, after ceiling proceedings attained finality, take possession of surplus land after evicting any person found in occupation of said land etc. 34. Procedure for taking possession is governed by Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1961"). Rules 13, 14,14-A relevant for laying procedure of taking possession of surplus land, read as under: "13. As soon as the order declaring any land surplus under Sections 11, 12 or 13 has become final, the Prescribed Authority shall send to the Collector of the district, where the surplus land is situate, intimation about the surplus land along with two copies of C.L.H. Form 5-A, for the purpose of taking possession on such land and correction of land records pertaining thereto. 14. After possession on the surplus land has been taken by the Collector, the Collector shall return one copy of C.L.H. Form 5-A to the Prescribed Authority concerned. The Prescribed Authority shall then, notify such land in the Official Gazette, on C.L.H. Form 6. 14-A. (1) Where a tenure-holder propose to deliver possession over any land referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 14, he shall send an intimation to the Collector C.L.H. Form 47 with a copy to the Prescribed Authority concerned. (2) If the intimation under sub-rule (1) is sent by registered post, the postal receipt thereof shall be retained by the tenure-holder as proof. But when the intimation is delivered personally to the Collector or to the Prescribed Authority, necessary acknowledgments should be obtained therefore. (3) The possession over the land referred to in C.L.H. Form 47 shall be deemed to have been delivered to the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 14 with effect from the date on which such Form is duly delivered or sent to the Collector. (3) The possession over the land referred to in C.L.H. Form 47 shall be deemed to have been delivered to the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 14 with effect from the date on which such Form is duly delivered or sent to the Collector. (4) An soon as may be after possession in surplus land is taken under sub-rule (3) the Prescribed Authority shall take steps for the issuance of the necessary notification in accordance with Rule 14." (Emphasis added) 35. Therefore, unless possession is taken by Collector under Section 14(1), question of vesting of land free from all encumbrances under Section 14 does not arise. In the present case, no material has been placed by State or its Authorities to show that Collector at any point of time took possession of land declared surplus by Prescribed Authority under Section 14(1) of Act, 1960. Unless possession is taken, question of vesting of land in State under Act, 1960 would not arise. I may also add at this stage that possession talked of under Section 14(1) is actual physical possession and not a notional, paper transaction. Rules 13 and 14 read with Section 14(1) show that Prescribed Authority shall send to Collector of district, where surplus land is situate, intimation about surplus land along with two copies of C.L.H. Form 5-A, for the purpose of taking possession on such land and correction of land records pertaining thereto. After taking possession on surplus land by Collector, he shall return a copy of C.L.H. Form 5-A to Prescribed Authority concerned. Prescribed Authority shall then notify such land in Official Gazette, on C.L.H. Form 6. 36. Rule 14-A deals with a situation where a Tenure-Holder himself proposes to deliver possession voluntarily but that does not apply in the present case as it is nobody's case that Petitioner-Company at any point of time chose to deliver possession voluntarily to Collector. 37. Neither copy of C.L.H. Form 5-A nor notification in Official Gazette on C.L.H. Form 6 has been placed on record, nor any such case has been pleaded by respondent-State of U.P. and its Authorities or even by MDA that these documents were prepared and possession of alleged surplus land, declared under ceiling proceedings, was ever taken in accordance with Section 14(1) of Act, 1960. 38. 38. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that surplus land declared by impugned order in First Petition did not vest in State under Section 14(3) of Act, 1960 since Collector did not take possession of surplus land at any point of time and no material has been placed before this Court to prove this fact. Question-1 is, therefore, answered in favour of Petitioner-Company. 39. Now, I come to question-2. It is not in dispute between Petitioner-Company, State of U.P. and its Authorities and MDA that agricultural farm was attached by Collector in furtherance of recovery of certain amount from Petitioner-Company in 1970. Petitioner-Company intended to dispose of some property in order to clear all the dues and sought permission from this Court in Writ Petition No. 2155 of 1970. On 23.10.1970, this Court passed following order: "Heard Advocates for the parties. The State will not be a losser if permission is granted to the petitioners to sell the agricultural farm safeguarding that the sale consideration is reasonable and a major part of the sale proceeds is credited towards the amount due from the petitioner company and the State does not have to refund this amount if in future litigation the sale-deed is set aside. In fact by this course the liability will be fully paid up much earlier. The application is hereby allowed and Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd., petitioner are allowed to sell the agricultural farm for sale consideration which appears to the Collector of Meerut to be reasonable. 90% of the sale consideration shall be credited to the State towards the liability and 10% can be utilised by the petitioner company for running the factory. It is further ordered that it shall be clearly indicated in the sale-deed that if the sale-deed is ever set aside, the state shall not be called upon nor shall be bound to refund the money credited towards the liability. It shall be open to the petitioner to execute the sale-deed and as soon as 90% of the sale consideration is deposited with the State the agricultural land sold shall stand released from attachment. In case of any dispute between the petitioner company and the Collector of Meerut, it shall be necessary for the petitioner to move this Court for approving the sale consideration. In case of any dispute between the petitioner company and the Collector of Meerut, it shall be necessary for the petitioner to move this Court for approving the sale consideration. The agricultural farm can be sold in stages or the total farm at the same time as the petitioner may consider necessary." 40. Petitioner-Company found purchasers and also proposed to sell, 48 bigha 9 biswa 12 biswansi land including tube-well installed in Farm, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,42,150/- and proposed to deposit Rs. 2,32,335/- on of sale consideration to clear dues of State. This permission was granted by this Court vide order dated 19.8.1971 passed in Writ Petition No. 2155 of 1970 and said order reads as under: "Heard parties counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is agreeable to deposit Rs. 2,32,335/- (Rupees two lacs thirty two thousand three hundred thirty five) with the Collector, Meerut as required by him under the orders of this Court dated 23.10.1970, the petitioner is entitled to sell the agricultural farm in dispute, if he deposits 90% per cent of the sale amount. The petitioner undertakes to deposit Rs. 2,32,335/- as determined by the Collector in his letter dated July 23, 1971. The original letter has been produced before me. I, therefore, direct that the Collector shall permit the petitioner to sell an area of 48 bighas 9 biswas and 12 biswansis including the tube-well installed in the farm, provided the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 2,32,335/- with him. The petitioner is permitted to execute the sale-deed for the consideration of Rs. 2,42,150/- but he has to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,32,335/- as required by the Collector. The attachment order in respect of the area of 48 bighas 8 biswas 12 biswansis shall be withdrawn only after the petitioner has deposited the said amount with the Collector. A copy of this order shall be given to the petitioner today on payment of usual charges." (Emphasis added) 41. Actual sale-deed was obviously executed on 28.10.1971 after appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971. In my view, this sale-deed could not have been ignored on the ground that it was not a bona fide transaction for adequate consideration since aforesaid sale had taken place with permission of this Court and even amount of consideration for sale of such land was permitted by this Court. In my view, this sale-deed could not have been ignored on the ground that it was not a bona fide transaction for adequate consideration since aforesaid sale had taken place with permission of this Court and even amount of consideration for sale of such land was permitted by this Court. Therefore, sale-deed dated 28.10.1971 in respect of area 48-8-12 ought to have been excluded and Prescribed Authority having not done so has clearly erred in law and even Appellate order is bad for this reason. Second question, therefore, is also answered in favour of Petitioner-Company. 42. Now coming to question-3, in my view, sale-deeds executed after appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971 have not been shown to be executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. In order to attract proviso (b) of Section 5(6) of Act, 1960, it was necessary to prove, to the satisfaction of Prescribed Authority, that transaction has been done in good faith and for adequate consideration. I may reproduce Section 5(6) of Act, 1960 asunder: "(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 sub-section (2); (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family." (Emphasis added) 43. Explanation II of Section 5(6) of Act, 1960 also provides that burden lies upon the party who is claiming benefit but nothing has been shown to this Court that such burden was discharged by Petitioner-Company or the petitioners to Second Petition to show that transaction was bona fide and/or for adequate consideration. Aforesaid sale-deeds, therefore, have rightly been excluded by Prescribed Authority while determining surplus land under Act, 1960 and question-3 is answered in favour of State of U.P. and its Authorities and against Petitioner-Company as also petitioners of Second Petition. 44. Questions- 4 and 5, I propose to answer together. Aforesaid sale-deeds, therefore, have rightly been excluded by Prescribed Authority while determining surplus land under Act, 1960 and question-3 is answered in favour of State of U.P. and its Authorities and against Petitioner-Company as also petitioners of Second Petition. 44. Questions- 4 and 5, I propose to answer together. As is already answered question-1, surplus land declared by Prescribed Authority did not vest in State under Section 14(3) of Act, 1960 since no possession was taken by Collector under Section 14(1) of Act, 1960. That being so, when acquisition proceedings were initiated by State, land of Petitioner-Company was available and open for acquisition. Had the land vested in State under Section 14 of Act, 1960, even otherwise, there could not have been any occasion of acquisition proceedings of land vested in State, since State cannot acquire land already owned by it or vested in it; Law in this regard is well-settled. 45. In Secretary of State v. Narain Khanna, AIR 1942 Privy Council 35, it was held: "where Government acquires any property consisting of land and buildings, and where land was the subject-matter of Government grant, subject to power of resumption by Government at any time on giving one month's notice, then compensation was payable only in respect of such buildings as may have been authorized to be erected and not in respect of land.'''' (Emphasis added) 46. A Division Bench of Judicial Commissioner in Md. Wajeeh Mirza v. Secretary of State for India in Council, AIR 1921 Oudh 31, said as under: "when Government itself claims to be owner of the land, there can be no question of its acquisition and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applicable. This opinion expressed by Judicial Commissioner has been approved in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another (supra). Court reiterate in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another (supra) that land or an interest in land pre-owned by State cannot be subject-matter of acquisition by State. If the land in question is Government land, there is no question of initiating proceedings of acquisition at all. Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it." (Emphasis added) 47. If the land in question is Government land, there is no question of initiating proceedings of acquisition at all. Government would not acquire the land, which already vests in it." (Emphasis added) 47. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2003 (3) SCC 128 , Court has said as under: "the State does not acquire its own land for it is futile to exercise the power of eminent domain for acquiring rights in the land, which had already vests in the State. It would be absurdity to comprehend the provisions of Land Acquisition Act being applicable to such land wherein ownership or the entirety of rights already vests in State. In other words, land owned by State on which there are no private rights or encumbrances is beyond the preview of provisions of Land Acquisition Act." (Emphasis added) 48. In Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, (1996) 10 SCC 150 , it was held: "under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, Government acquires the sum total of all private interests subsisting in them. If Government has itself an interest in land, it has only to acquire other interest outstanding thereof so that it might be in a position to pass it on absolutely for public user." (Emphasis added) 49. In State of U.P. and another v. Lalji Tandon (dead) through Legal Representatives, ( 2004 (1) SCC 1 ) referring to the decision in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar (supra), Court said as under: "the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land i.e the site below the bungalow are meaningless. It would have been different if the State would have proposed the acquisition of lease hold rights and/or the superstructure standing thereon, as the case may. But that has not been done." 50. The above discussion shows that had the land been vested in State by taking possession after declaration as surplus land, there could not have been any occasion of acquisition but process of acquisition has not been disputed by respondents as well as State and nothing has been placed before this Court to show that land has ever vested in State so as not to become open for acquisition under Act, 1894. 51. 51. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that an order was passed merely declaring certain land as surplus but it remained in further litigation and in the meantime, State opted to take some of such land through the process of acquisition under Act, 1894 and, therefore, such land has to be excluded thereafter in considering the question about the surplus land held by Petitioner-Company. 52. Thus, entire land having been acquired for the benefit of MDA by State, I have no hesitation in holding that same would have to be governed under the provisions of Act, 1894 and compensation is payable to Tenure-Holders whose names are recorded in Revenue record. 53. Learned counsel for Petitioner-Company has clearly stated that in respect of land which has been sold and also subjected to acquisition, it has no objection in case compensation is paid in respect of such land to the persons whom land was sold and whose name are recorded as tenure-holder in Revenue Record. 54. In view of above discussions, Writ Petition No. 3905 of 1987 is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.11.1986 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut as well as Prescribed Authority's order dated 30.1.1982 are hereby set aside. Prescribed Authority shall now redetermine surplus land of Petitioner-Company in the light of observations/discussions made hereinabove. 55. Writ Petition No. 3156 of 1987 is dismissed since sale-deeds of these petitioners having been executed after appointed date i.e. 24.1.1971, and are not protected by proviso (b) of Section 5(6) of Act, 1960. 56. Writ Petition No. 3496 of 1988 is allowed, in view of the fact that Petitioner-Company's Writ Petition No. 3905 of 1987 has been allowed by holding that sale-deed executed by Petitioner-Company after permission of this Court granted vide order dated 19.8.1971 has to be excluded. 57. Writ Petitions No. 69578 of 2005 and 5151 of 2006 filed by MDA are hereby dismissed.