JUDGMENT :- The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether involuntary transfers such as a Court sale, is a transaction valid under the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (8) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Ceiling Act), and to be reckoned in decreasing the surplus area?

2. One Jagdish Chander was a tenure-holder in village Bijeser Bijoria, Distt. Shahjahanpur in the State of U. P. He had a large holding being over 100 acres of land. On 10-10-1974, he was served with a notice containing the necessary statement of his holding under the provisions of Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act. A proposal was appended therewith as to which of his area was proposed to be declared surplus. The tenure-holder thereafter filed certain objections. His objections maintly were that his entire holding was unirrigated and had wrongly been termed as irrigated and for this twist, he gave various reasons. He also raised the plea that he had one major unmarried daughter and therefore was entitled to get two additional hectares of land for her. He did not mention about his son. Perhaps he was a minor on the crucial date. Lastly, he made an option to effect a change in the lands proposed to be declared surplus. These facts are crystal clear from the narration given in the order of the additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, Appended as Annexure A to the special leave petition.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, Jagdish Chander died and his heir Ajai Verma was substituted in the year 1984. On 22-8-1984, 82.49 acres of land of the tenure-holder was declared surplus. The matter rested there so far as Jagdish Chander and his family members were concerned. The matter for them became closed.

4. The appellants before us were the writ petitioners in the High Court. They are sons of one Dharmendra Nath. This Dharmendra Nath, apparently, had certain money claims on the basis of pronotes against the aforesaid Jagdish Chander. he filed four suits in the Civil Court for the recovery thereof. The sums involved were small. The suits were decreed basically on consent or compromise. All of them were instituted and decided in the year 1972. Purporting to recover those decretal amounts, action of land of the judgment-debtor was suggested in execution and the executing Court in order to recover the decretal sums, put to action 75.51 acres of land on 17-10-1975 belonging to Jagdish Chander, permitting the decree-holders, the appellants herein, to purchase the same. The sale was confirmed and sales certificates were issued. It is in these circumstances that the appellants moved the Prescribed Authority for setting aside the determination of the surplus area of the decree-holder vide order dated 20-8-1984. Their objection was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. Their appeal, too, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 12-9-1985. This gave an occasion to them to approach the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants, however, raised a number of pleas to contend that their claim had wrongly been negatived being bona fide purchasers of surplus area measuring 75.51 acres by an auction sale and, hence they, were entitled to the protection of law. (In fact, it was their father who was the auction-purchaser but on his demise they had been projecting his case as his legal representatives).

5. The State, on the other hand, questioned the auction sale terming it as neither being a bona fide transaction nor for adequate consideration, giving justification to the Ceiling Authorities to ignore the same. It was highlighted that since the proceeedings for determination of surplus area were pending from 10-10-1974 till 22-8-1984, the auction-sale effected within that period had to be treated as void conferring no right on the appellants.

6. Section 5 of the Ceiling Act, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, provide