JUDGMENT

In this appeal the short question that arises for consideration is whether the sale of the land effected by the appellant on May 12, 1976 was covered by sub-clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The admitted facts are:

An amendment to the Act was introduced with effect from June 8, 1973 lowering the ceiling on holdings under the Act. It was given retrospective effect from January 24, 1971. In the meanwhile, the appellant had sold 34 bighas from his holding for a consideration of Rs. 73,000/- on May 12, 1972 by a registered sale deed, and the possession of the land was also given to the vendee. It is only after the amendment of 1973, when a fresh notice was issued to show cause as to why the property sold should not be included in his landholding, that the dispute with regard to the inclusion or exclusion of the property in the total landholding of the appellant for the purposes of the Act arose. The Prescribed Authority held that the sale deed in question was executed to evade the provisions of the Act and, therefore, ignored the sale deed and included the land in the appellants holding and calculated the surplus land . in his possession, accordingly.

3. In appeal, the District Judge confirmed the finding and dismissed the appellants appeal. The High Court in writ petition treated the finding of the District Judge as a finding of fact and did not think it necessary to interfere with it. It is aggrieved by these orders that the present appeal is filed.

4. Mr. Goyal, the learned Counsel appeallant brought to our notice two decisions of this Court in Brijendra Singh v. State of.U. P., AIR 1981 SC 636 and in, Bhupendra Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 1157, which were delivered after the impugned decision of the High Court which is of July 13, 1977. The ratio of these decisions is that once the landholder/ tenure-holder proves that he had transferred the land in good faith and for valid necessity and. had not done it benami or kept any interest in the transferred land in his favour either in present or in future, it is not further incumbent upon him to prove that the transaction was effected for a compelling necessity. If the transfer of the land was made in the course of ordinary management of his affairs, it may be held that it is done in good faith and without. an intention to evade the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the admitted facts are that on the date the land was transferred, there was a loan of Rupees 29,000/ - and odd outstanding and payable by the appellant to the Government. There was also another loan of Rs. 5,000/- outstanding and payable by him to a co-operative society. It is also not disputed that the appellant who is an agriculturist purchased a tractor for Rs. 12,500 / - after the said transaction of sale. He has, of course, also pleaded that being a patient of tuberculosis,he had to spend a sizeable amount for his treatment which he did out of the monies which he secured by transfer of the land. This has also not been disputed on behalf of the authorities. It is not disputed that the appellant did pay to the Government the outstanding loan of Rupees 29,000/-and odd on May 24. 1972. He also paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 / - towards the loan of the society and purchased the tractor valued at Rs. 12,500/ -,after the transfer of the land. Even if we ignore the amount spent by him on his medical treatment since it is not specified, in all he spent about Rs. 46,500 / - after the transaction in dispute. The learned District Judge who is the final fact finding authority under the Act without disputing the correctness of these payments has merely observed that since the appellant had transferred two other plots, one in 1964 and another in 1970 for a total consideration of Rs. 35,000/- and odd, when the loansto the Gopvernment as well as to the society were outstanding, he could as w