Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was initiated against Dilawar Singh asking him to show cause as to why 9 bighas 14 biswas and 9 biswansi of irrigated land should not be declared as surplus. Sri Dilawar Singh filed his objections denying holding of any surplus land and submitted that vide two sale-deeds dated 19.9.1970, he had transferred the land pertaining to Khasara No. 170 consisting of 8 bighas, 11 biswas and 7 biswansi. Similarly, Khasara No. 106 was transferred in favour of Vimla Devi vide sale-deed dated 25.8.1971 whose name was also mutated in the revenue records and that the said person was in cultivatory possession. It was also alleged that he had executed a registered will deed dated 27.5.1974 in favour of his grandson Indrapal and Amar Deep. It was also alleged that plot Nos. 1020, 1022, 1034 and 1036 were grove land and therefore, such land could not be included as surplus irrigated land.

2. The Prescribed Authority, vide an order dated 28.8.1974, partly allowed the objection, holding that the sale-deed dated 9.9.1970 was genuine and that the land was actually transferred. The prescribed authority, also found that only 11 bighas, 10 biswas and 50 biswansi of land was a grove land and that 4 bighas and 15 biswas was cultivatory land and, in this way, the prescribed authority declared 1 bigha 3 biswas and 8 biswansi as surplus land. Sri Dilawar, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, filed an appeal and submitted that the entire area of 15 bighas 10 biswas should be treated as a grove and that 4 bighas and 15 biswas had wrongly been excluded from the grove. The appellate authority rejected the contention of the petitioner holding that even though 4 bighas and 15 biswas of land was recorded as grove in the revenue records, nonetheless, since the land was being cultivated, the same could not be treated as a grove. Sri Dilawar Singh filed a Writ Petition No. 1792 of 1975 which was allowed by a judgment dated 4.5.1978 and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide afresh in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. The High Court held that merely because a portion of the land was being cultivated would not exclude the said land from the definition of a grove land as contemplated under Section 3(8) of the Act.

3. It transpires that in view of the amendments made in the Act, fresh notice was issued to the heirs of Dilawar Singh by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners filed their objections. The Prescribed Authority, vide an order dated 10.7.1978 declared 16 bighas, 12 biswas and 18 biswansi of irrigated land as surplus. The prescribed authority held that the sale-deed of 9.9.1970 was liable to be ignored since no mutation was done in favour of the vendee on or before 8.6.1973 and that the sale-deed in favour of the Vimla Devi, being executed after 24.1.1971 was liable to be ignored. The prescribed authority, further found that no evidence was filed to show that plot Nos. 1020, 1022, 1024, 1034 and 1036 were a grove as defined under Section 3(8) of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 16.1.1987. The petitioners have consequently, filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K. Rai and Sri G.K. Malviya for the petitioners and Sri J.K. Khanna, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the genuineness of the sale-deed dated 9.9.1970 cannot be taken into consideration by the authorities under the Ceiling Act and the land transferred by the sale-deed was liable to be excluded from the total holding of the petitioners. Further, the sale-deed executed in favour of Vimla Devi, even though it was executed after 24.1.1971, nonetheless, the sale-deed was bonafidely executed and that Vimla Devi was in cultiva