JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand, has assailed the order dated 05.12.2001 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 4/13 (Year 1999-2000), as well as the order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Udham Singh Nagar, in Ceiling Case No. 51/36 (Year 1990-91). 2. The facts of the case are as follows: (i) In the year 1975, a Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “1960 Act”) was issued to Smt. Amana Begum, inter-alia, stating that, out of the total 24.67 hectares of land held by her in three villages, namely, Rahpura, Khamria and Chhinki, in Tehsil Kichcha, 7.30 hectares of land be retained by her and the remaining 17.37 hectares of land be declared as surplus land. However, before the said Notice could be served, Smt. Amana Begum died. Thereafter, Sri Shams Ahmed and Smt. Ahmedi Begum (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) filed objections to the said Notice. The Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 29.11.1975, passed in Ceiling Case No. 51/204 (Year 1974-75), declared 17.37 hectares of land as surplus. (ii) Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 14.02.1977, whereby the order dated 29.11.1975 was set-aside and it was directed that Notice under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act be issued again. (iii) Accordingly, Notice under Section 10(2) was issued again on 16.09.1978. The Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 16.01.1981, held that there was no surplus land and, accordingly, cancelled the Notice issued under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act. (iv) The State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) preferred an appeal challenging the order dated 16.01.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 04.12.1981. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed on 30.09.1982. (v) The State of Uttarakhand challenged the order dated 30.09.1982 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed on 30.09.1982. (v) The State of Uttarakhand challenged the order dated 30.09.1982 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 05.11.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 1986, allowed the appeal and set-aside the earlier orders passed in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, since Smt. Amana Begum was alive on 08.06.1973, on which date ceiling on the holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh was imposed by Section 5 of the Act, she became liable to surrender the surplus land in her hands in excess of what she could retain in accordance with the said Section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, accordingly, set-aside the orders passed by the High Court and the other authorities, and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of its judgment, leaving all other questions open. (vi) Pursuant to the judgment dated 05.11.1986 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Ceiling Case was presented before the Prescribed Authority for disposal. During the pendency of the said Ceiling Case, Sri Daulat Ram (father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5), Sri Badhawa Ram (father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7), Sri Pyare Lal (father of respondent Nos. 8 and 9), Sri Chaudhary Ram (respondent No. 10), Sri Roshan Lal (respondent No. 11) and Sri Prem Nath (respondent No. 12) moved applications for their impleadment in the ceiling case. The Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 30.09.1991, rejected the said applications. An appeal was filed against the said order dated 30.09.1991, which was also dismissed on 18.02.1993. (vii) The aforementioned respondents challenged the orders dated 30.09.1991 and 18.02.1993 by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 15.03.1993, allowed the writ petitions; quashed both the impugned orders; and directed that the petitioners before it (i.e. the aforementioned respondents) be impleaded as parties to the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act initiated against Smt. Amana Begum and be allowed to lead evidence in support of their case. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 15.03.1993, allowed the writ petitions; quashed both the impugned orders; and directed that the petitioners before it (i.e. the aforementioned respondents) be impleaded as parties to the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act initiated against Smt. Amana Begum and be allowed to lead evidence in support of their case. It is appropriate, at this stage, to take note of the exact order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid case and the same is reproduced hereunder: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings for determination of surplus land with Smt. Amina Begum, for if the petitioner could be able to establish that on the basis of adverse possession, he had acquired rights under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, on the relevant date then in that event he may be regarded as tenure holder in his own right but this could be possible only if the petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence in the case. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.9.1991 and 18.2.1993 are quashed. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a party to the proceedings under Section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act started against Smt. Amina Begum, (now represented by Sri S. Ahmad) and he shall be allowed to lead evidence in support of his case.” (viii) Pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court as aforesaid, the respondents adduced evidence in support of their objections. The Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 30.09.1995, declared 24 Bigha 17 Biswa land as un-irrigated surplus land. (ix) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) filed an appeal bearing No. 3/2 of the year 1995-96 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 26.05.1997, set-aside the order dated 30.09.1995 and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal. (ix) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) filed an appeal bearing No. 3/2 of the year 1995-96 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 26.05.1997, set-aside the order dated 30.09.1995 and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal. While remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority observed the following 04 issues to be re-considered and decided by the Prescribed Authority: (a) Exemption of 6 hectares of land to the original tenure holder’s heir/legal representative Shams Ahmed is not in accordance with law? (b) Whether the land is irrigated or un-irrigated? (c) The land of Prem Nath and Daulat Ram should be separated from the original tenure holder Amana Begum? (d) If, in regard to the land in possession of Chaudhary Ram and Roshan Lal, the order dated 30.09.1995 of the Prescribed Authority is vague and non-speaking? (x) Pursuant to the order dated 26.05.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority, the learned Prescribed Authority disposed of the Ceiling Case, under Section 10(2) of the 1960 Act, vide its order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure No. 3). The Prescribed Authority, vide the said order, granted exemption of 6 hectares of land to the heir/legal representative of Smt. Amana Begum and held that the entire land was un-irrigated. Regarding the lands in possession of Roshan Lal and Chaudhary Ram, the Prescribed Authority held that the land belonged to Roshan Lal and Chaudhary Ram separately because the Consolidation Officer had earlier drawn conclusion to the same effect. (xi) Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.02.2000 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, the State of Uttarakhand (petitioner herein) preferred Civil Appeal No. 4/13 (Year 1999-2000). In the appeal, the petitioner contended that the Prescribed Authority, without considering the judgment dated 05.11.1986 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, granted exemption of 6 hectares of land to the family members of respondent No. 1. It was further contended by the petitioner that, at the time of death of Smt. Amana Begum, she had no legal heir or representative. Respondent No. 1 (Shams Ahmed) and the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Fazal Ahmed) claimed themselves to be the heirs/legal representatives of Smt. Amana Begum on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 16.05.1974, whereby Smt. Amana Begum had bequeathed 366 Bigha 9 Biswa land to the said respondents. Respondent No. 1 (Shams Ahmed) and the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Fazal Ahmed) claimed themselves to be the heirs/legal representatives of Smt. Amana Begum on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 16.05.1974, whereby Smt. Amana Begum had bequeathed 366 Bigha 9 Biswa land to the said respondents. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not come under the definition of “tenure holder” and are not entitled to any exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act. It was also argued that, even if the family register is made the basis for grant of exemption to respondent No. 1, the Prescribed Authority has committed manifest error of law and fact, inasmuch as, respondent No. 1, if at all, is entitled to any exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act, only an exemption of 2 hectares can be given to him. This is because a child born in 1974 cannot be included in the number of family members on 08.06.1973, the appointed day. It was further argued that despite giving a finding to the effect that 76 Bigha 10 Biswa land purchased by Sri Prem Nath and Sri Daulat Ram through registered sale-deed would be treated to be belonging to the original tenure holder Smt. Amana Begum for the purpose of determination of ceiling area, the Prescribed Authority declared only 24 Bigha 17 Biswa land as surplus. The learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, vide order dated 05.12.2001 (Annexure No. 5), dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Authority allegedly decided the appeal without going into the material irregularities committed by the Prescribed Authority. (xii) Hence, the present writ petition seeking to set-aside the order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 05.12.2001 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is clear from the above narrated facts that, when the matter was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 05.11.1986, to the learned Prescribed Authority, the learned Prescribed Authority should have taken into consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and should have decided the case. 4. It is clear from the above narrated facts that, when the matter was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 05.11.1986, to the learned Prescribed Authority, the learned Prescribed Authority should have taken into consideration the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and should have decided the case. Further, on the development of filing of Impleadment Applications by the other respondents and as directed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the newly added respondents should have been given an opportunity to establish how they have perfected their title by adverse possession or by operation of law, namely, Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the rules framed thereunder. 5. It is appropriate, at this stage, to take note of the exact order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion is reproduced herein-below: “Smt. Amna Begum was alive on June 8, 1973 on which date the ceiling on the holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh was imposed by Section 5 of the Act. Smt. Amna Begum became liable to surrender the surplus land in her hands in excess of what she could retain in accordance with that section. Merely because she had died before the issue of the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act her liability to surrender the surplus land would not come to an end. Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 framed under the Act provides that where a tenure-holder dies before the publication of the general notice under Section 9 of the Act, such publication shall be deemed to apply to the executor, administrator or other legal representatives and the Prescribed Authority may proceed to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator, or other legal representatives were the tenure holder. It also provides that where a tenure holder dies before he is served a notice under sub.-S. (2) of Section 10 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority may serve such notice on his executor, administrator or other legal representatives and may proceed to determine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator or other legal representatives were the tenure-holder. The principle applicable to the determination of the surplus land under the land reforms laws in the hands of persons holding land on the date on which the ceiling is imposed is explained by this Court in Raghunath Laxman Wani vs. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 391 , thus: “The scheme of the Act seems to be to determine the ceiling area of each person (including a family) with reference to the appointed day. The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed day no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area as determined under the Act and that ceiling area would be that which is determined as on the appointed day. Therefore, if there is a family consisting of persons exceeding five in number on January 26, 1962, the ceiling area for that family would be the basic ceiling area plus 1/6th thereof per member in excess of the number five. The ceiling area so fixed would not be liable to fluctuations with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number of its members, for, there is, apart from the explicit language of Sections 3 and 4, no provision in the Act providing for the re-determination of the ceiling area of a family on variations in the number of its members. The argument that every addition or reduction in the number of the members of a family requires re-determination of the ceiling area of such a family would mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the Revenue Authorities, a state of affairs hardly to have been contemplated by the legislature.” The principle enunciated in the above decision has been followed by this Court in Bhikaba Shankar Dhumal (dead) by LRs. and Others vs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 680 . In that case it was held that the surplus land in the case of a person who held land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed day had to be determined as on the appointed day even though such person might have died before the actual extent of surplus land was determined and notified. In that case it was held that the surplus land in the case of a person who held land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed day had to be determined as on the appointed day even though such person might have died before the actual extent of surplus land was determined and notified. It was further held that the persons on whom his holding devolved on his death would be liable to surrender the surplus land as on the appointed day because the liability attached to the holding of the deceased would not come to an end on his death. Although the above decisions are rendered in cases arising under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 the principle set out therein applies to all cases where there is an imposition of ceiling on lands held by land holders by land ceiling laws with effect from a specified date. In fact rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act which is referred to above also leads to the same view. Whatever surplus land was liable to be surrendered by a tenure-holder has to be determined as on June 8, 1973 and taken possession under the Act even though the tenure-holder might have died after June 8, 1973 and before such ascertainment. We, therefore, do not agree with the view of the Prescribed Authority and the Civil Judge that for purposes of determining the surplus land the share of land in the hands of each of the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum should be treated as a separate unit for determining the surplus land. We hold that for purposes of deciding the surplus land which is liable to be surrendered from out of the estate of Smt. Amna Begum, the relevant date that should be taken into account is June 8, 1973 on which date the ceiling on holdings was imposed and Smt. Arena Begum became liable to surrender the surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The heirs or legal representatives of Smt. Amna Begum together are entitled to retain out of the estate of Smt. Amna Begum only an extent of land equal to the area which Smt. Amna Begum could have retained in her hands after the imposition of ceiling on land holdings and are liable to surrender the surplus land. The heirs or legal representatives of Smt. Amna Begum together are entitled to retain out of the estate of Smt. Amna Begum only an extent of land equal to the area which Smt. Amna Begum could have retained in her hands after the imposition of ceiling on land holdings and are liable to surrender the surplus land. The High Court failed to consider this aspect of the question when it disposed of the writ petition.” 6. Thus, we have to examine whether the order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, does conform to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 7. As far as the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the determination of the surplus land and the land to be retained by Smt. Amana Begum is concerned, the learned Prescribed Authority has not given any specific finding. It is apparent from the second paragraph at internal page no. 6 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Prescribed Authority that it has not given any specific finding on that. It is appropriate to reproduce the same as under: ^^i=koyh ij layXu ifjokj iaftdk dh Áekf.kr Áfrfyfi dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa ifjokj dk Áeq[k 'ke'k vgen rFkk 'ke'k vgen ds vfrfjDr mudh iRuh Jherh fQjnkSlh csxe rFkk mlds ikap cPps ftuesa rhu iq= rFkk nks iqf=;ka gSaA iq=ksa esa ekSŒ vgen dh tUe frfFk 1968] lqjkt vgen dh tUe frfFk 1971 rFkk ekSŒ ijcst dh tUefrfFk 1974 gSA bl Ádkj 'kelkg vgen ds ifjokj esa dqy 7 lnL; gksus dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA vkifRrdrkZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vksj ls lhfyax vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5&3 o dh rjQ /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, dgk x;k gS fd ;fn fdlh ifjokj esa 5 lnL; ls vf/kd gSa rks mls 6 gSŒ ¼vflafpr½ dk ykHk feyuk pkfg,A mijksDr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj [kkrsnkj 'ke'k vgen dks 6 gSŒ ¼vflafpr½ dk ykHk fn;k tk ldrk gSA** 8. After holding that the tenure-holder Shams Ahmed can be given 6 hectares of land for retaining, the Prescribed Authority has gone on to discuss Issue No. 2, i.e. whether the land is irrigated. It is also not clear from the operative portion of the order whether 6 hectares of land has been granted in favour of Smt. Amana Begum or her legal heirs. It is also not clear from the operative portion of the order whether 6 hectares of land has been granted in favour of Smt. Amana Begum or her legal heirs. The Prescribed Authority has decided that the lands are non-irrigated, that is not disputed at this stage. While deciding Issue No. 3, i.e. whether the land purchased by Prem Nath and Daulat Ram through registered sale-deed should be separated from the original tenure holder, the learned Prescribed Authority held that the registered sale-deed is dated 22.07.1974 and, as per sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the 1960 Act, any transfer, which is not made with an intention to avoid ceiling surplus and made in good faith, will be excluded from the ceiling proceedings if it is made prior to 14.01.1971. It is appropriate to take note of the entire Section 5 of the 1960 Act, which reads as follows: “5. Imposition of Ceiling: (1) On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate through-out Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Explanation I - In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any other person, shall be taken into account. Explanation II - If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivator possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1), shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons namely: (a) the Central Government, the State Government or any Local Authority or a Government Company or a Corporation. (b) a University. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1), shall apply to land held by the following classes of persons namely: (a) the Central Government, the State Government or any Local Authority or a Government Company or a Corporation. (b) a University. (c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post-graduate college. (d) a banking company or a co-operative bank or a co-operative land development bank. (e) the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7), the ceiling area for purposes of sub-section (1) shall be: (a) in the case of a tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family) plus two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by him aggregates to two hectares, for each of his adult sons, who are either not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, subject to a maximum of six hectares of such additional land. (b) in the case of a tenure-holder having family of more than five members, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land (including land held by other members of his family), besides, each of the members exceeding five and for each of his adult sons who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold less than two hectares of irrigated land, two additional hectares of irrigated land or such additional land which together with the land held by such adult son aggregates to two hectares, subject to maximum of six hectares of such additional land. Explanation - The express ‘adult son’ in clauses (a) and (b) includes an adult son who is dead and has left surviving behind him minor sons or minor daughters (other than married daughters) who are not themselves tenure-holders or who hold land less than two hectares of irrigated land. (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) in the case of any other tenure-holder, 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. Explanation - any transfer or partition of land which is liable to be ignored under sub-sections (6) and (7) shall be ignored also: (f) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure-holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of clause (a) or clause (b). Explanation - any transfer or partition of land which is liable to be ignored under sub-sections (6) and (7) shall be ignored also: (f) for purposes of determining whether an adult son of a tenure-holder is himself a tenure-holder within the meaning of clause (a) or clause (b). (g) for purposes of service of notice under Section 9. (4) Where any holding is held by a firm or co-operative society or association of persons (whether incorporated or not, but not including a public company), its members (whether called partners, share-holders or by any other name) shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to hold that holding in proportion to their respective shares in that firm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons: Provided that where a person immediately before his admission to the firm, co-operative society, or other society or association of persons, held no land or an area of land less than the area proportionate to his aforesaid share then he shall be deemed to hold no share, or as the case may be, only the lesser area in that holding, and the entire or the remaining area of the holding, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be held by the remaining members in proportion to their respective shares in the firm, co-operative society or other society or association of persons. (5) In respect of any holding held by any private trust: (a) where the shares of its beneficiaries in the income from such trust are known or determinable, the beneficiaries shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to have the shares in that holding in the same proportions as their respective shares in the income from such trust. (b) in any other case, it shall be governed by clause (e) of sub-section (3). (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. Explanation I - For the purposes of this subsection, 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, acknowledgement, 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 II - The burden of proving that a case falls within clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. (7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, any partition of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the partition 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) xxx xxx xxx (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date: Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding proviso the prescribed authority, if it is of opinion that by collusion between the tenure-holder and any other party to the partition, such other party has been given a share which he was not entitled to, or a larger share than he was entitled to may ignore such partition. Explanation I - If a suit is instituted after the said date for declaration that a partition of land has taken place on or before the said date, then such declaration shall be ignored and not be taken into account, and it shall be deemed that no partition has taken place on or before the said date. Explanation II - The burden of proving that a case falls within the first proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. Explanation II - The burden of proving that a case falls within the first proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6) and (7), no tenure-holder shall transfer any land held by him during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land in relation to such tenure-holder and every transfer made in contravention of this subsection shall be void. Explanation - For the purposes of this subsection, proceedings for determination of surplus land shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of publication of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and shall be deemed to have concluded on the date when an order in relation to such tenure-holder is passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 or under sub-section (1) of Section 12, or as the case may be, under Section 13.” 9. A careful reading of sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the 1960 Act clearly reveals that, though all transfers made after 14.01.1971 shall be held to be within the ceiling area of the tenure-holder, an exception has been provided, which is applicable when the following conditions are satisfied: (i) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred to in sub-section (2). (ii) 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. 10. The said sub-section further provides that the expression “transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971” includes: (i) 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. (ii) any admission, acknowledgement, relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. 11. Explanation II thereof provides that the burden of proving that a case falls within clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. 12. In applying these principles to the case in hand, this Court comes to the finding that, by 22.07.1974, the original tenure-holder was already dead. 11. Explanation II thereof provides that the burden of proving that a case falls within clause (b) of the proviso shall rest with the party claiming its benefit. 12. In applying these principles to the case in hand, this Court comes to the finding that, by 22.07.1974, the original tenure-holder was already dead. The persons, who are claiming to be the legal heirs, i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3, might have executed a sale-deed, but it cannot be said that the sale-deed has been executed by the tenure-holder for bona fide purposes, satisfying the requirement of sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the 1960 Act. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority on Issue No. 3 is erroneous. In fact, the order passed on Issue No. 3 is so cryptic that it is not known actually who executed the sale-deed. There is no discussion at all about the same. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority on Issue No. 3 and confirmed by the Appellate Court, is liable to be set-aside and the matter needs to be re-considered by the Prescribed Authority. 13. As far as the Issue No. 4 is concerned, the question that was raised before the learned Prescribed Authority was, whether Chaudhary Ram and Roshan Lal are in possession of certain lands and have acquired occupancy rights over the same. After discussing the relevant material on record, the learned Prescribed Authority has come to the conclusion that Chaudhary Ram, Pyare Lal, Roshan Lal, Ved Prakash and Ramesh Kumar are in possession of land for about 9 years and their names have been recorded by the Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceedings. 14. It is well settled principle of law that, in order to establish title by way of adverse possession, the party claiming adverse possession must establish its possession for the statutory period (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario). In other words, the party claiming title by way of adverse possession must establish that his possession is peaceful, open and continuous, with hostile animus to the title of the real owner. In the present case, there is no such finding recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority while deciding the Issue. In other words, the party claiming title by way of adverse possession must establish that his possession is peaceful, open and continuous, with hostile animus to the title of the real owner. In the present case, there is no such finding recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority while deciding the Issue. Furthermore, the order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority is not in tune with the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad when it had allowed the Impleadment Applications filed by the private respondents. 15. Furthermore, one more aspect has been ignored by the learned Prescribed Authority, i.e. whenever there is a conflict between the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Land Reforms Act and the authorities under the Consolidation Act, the orders passed by the Authorities under the Land Reforms Act shall prevail. Merely because the consolidation authority has recorded certain persons much after the appointed day for determination of ceiling surplus, favourable orders cannot be passed in favour of such persons. 16. Thus, in a conspectus of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter should be re-considered by the learned Prescribed Authority, in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, respectively, referred to in preceding paragraphs. 17. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed; the order dated 05.12.2001 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 4/13 (Year 1999- 2000), as well as the order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Udham Singh Nagar, in Ceiling Case No. 51/36 (Year 1990-91), are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Prescribed Authority for re-consideration in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in this judgment. 18. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Prescribed Authority on 22.04.2022. 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment be communicated to the Prescribed Authority by the Registry forthwith.