Judgment

NATARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave arises out of and is directed against the dismissal of Civil Misc. Writ No. 72/77 filed by the appellant by the High Court of Allahabad by judgment and order dated 31-3-1977. The facts are not in controversy and the only question for consideration in the appeal is whether the High Court was in error in affirming the view taken by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority (the District Judge, Mathura) that an extent of 12.35 acres, which the appellant claimed to have transferred to his daughter; by means of a registered gift deed, has also to be reckoned in computing the total extent of land in the appellants holding for determination of the ceiling area in his holding under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter the Act) 1960.

2. In response to a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Act, the appellant contended that he was not in possession of 23.61 acres of surplus agricultural land as set out in the notice and that the authorities had failed to notice that he had transferred by means of a registered deed of gift dated 7-1-1972 an extent of 12.35 acres of land to his invalid daughter Pushpa Devi who remained unmarried in spite of being 30 years old because of her being born a crippled child and, secondly, the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 226, 227 and 229 were part of Abadi and, therefore, stood excluded from the operation of the Ceiling Act. Both the contentions did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. In so far as the first contention is concerned, with which alone we are concerned in this appeal, both the authorities held that the appellant had failed to establish that the transfer of land in favour of his daughter was made in good faith and was not intended for the immediate or deferred benefit of the appellant and other members of his family and furthermore the transfer appeared to be a device to defeat the provisions of the Act. The appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 72/77 in the High Court for having the order of the Prescribed Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority quashed but failed to meet with success and hence the present appeal by special leave.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding rendered against the appellant as regards the purported gift of land to his daughter, on the following grounds:-

(1) Though the registered deed of gift had been executed after the prescribed date viz. 21-1-71, the transfer was in pursuance of an. earlier family arrangement to provide maintenance for the invalid daughter and, therefore, the transfer falls outside the purview of Section 5(6) of the Act.

(2) Alternatively, if the transfer attracted the operation of Section 5( 6) and did not constitute an excepted transfer under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 5(6), then Section 5(6) should be held ultra vires Article 31-A of the Constitution.

(3) The Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in that it discriminates between major unmarried daughters and minor unmarried dauthters by excluding the former from the definition of family under Section 3(7) of the Act.

4. Before examining the merits of the above said contentions, it has to be stated that the Act as well as the amending Acts viz. Uttar Pradesh Act 18 of 1973 and Uttar Pradesh Act 2 of 1975 have been included in the Ninth Schedule and therefore Section 5(6) is not open to attack on the ground of constitutional infirmity by reason of the immunity conferred by Article 31-B. Bearing this position in mind, we may refer to the definition of Section 3(7) and Section 5(6) of the Act. The relevant provision read as under :-

"Section 3(7):- Family in relation to a tenure-holder means himself or herself and his wife or her husband, as the case may be (other than a judicially separated wife or husband), minor sons and minor daughters (other than married daughters).

"Section 5(6). In determining the ceiling