1. Both these matters relates to common questions of law and facts and therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, are being heard and decided by this common judgement.

2. Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. This writ petition has arisen out of the orders passed by ceiling authorities in the proceedings arising out of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act 1960"). The Prescribed Authority by order dated 28.9.1993 ( Annexure 1 to the writ petition) declared 5.11 acres at Village Malakapur, Pargana Koda, District Fatehpur being Gata No.450 and 480 irrigated land surplus and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the said order by rejecting petitioner's appeal vide order dated 30.5.1994.

4. Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that earlier ceiling proceedings were initiated against petitioner's father and had attained finality. However, on 27.11.1983 the petitioner's father died and on 17.4.1987 his mother died. The holding of the petitioner's parent naturally succeeded by the petitioner as a result whereof his holding exceeded the prescribed limit giving an occasion to the ceiling authorities to initiate ceiling proceedings by issuing a notice dated 1.7.1989 under Section 10( 2) of the Act 1960. After considering the objections filed by the petitioner, 11 issues were framed by Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that much before the death of the petitioner's parents, a sizeable area of holding belong to petitioner was already transferred by way of several sale deeds executed to various persons for bona fide and valid consideration. The same therefore could not have been included to determine surplus land against the petitioner. The authorities below have rejected petitioner's contention only on the ground that all the aforesaid sale deed were registered after 24.1.1971 ignoring the fact that upto 1983 the land in its entirety did not belong to the petitioner and whatever holding the petitioner had up to 1983 i.e. till the death of his father was within ceiling limit. Therefore in a bona fide manner he claims to have executed certain sale deeds, and, unless the same are found to be vitiated on account of lack of bona fide and valid consideration, the same could not have been excluded only on the ground that they were executed after 24.1.1971.

5. The details of the sale deed have been given in para 23 and it shows that out of six deeds, there was only one sale deed dated 13.6.1986 which was executed after devolution of the holding of the petitioner's father upon petitioner after his death and rest of the deeds were executed when petitioner's holding was in his own rights and within the ceiling limits since the same was distinguished and other than holdings of petitioner's father, who was already subjected to ceiling proceedings separately at that time. In my view, this aspect has not been validly and legally considered by the authorities concerned and therefore, on this aspect the matters needs be reconsidered.

6. Secondly, it is contended that Gata No.233, 350 and 440 mentioned in the notice were grove land and therefore, had to be exempted. On this aspect issue no.4 was framed. The State contended that Gata No.350 was a typing error and it was actually 450. In respect to the land in Gata No.233 and 440, findings shows that in 440 it was registered as grove, mentioning the number of trees being 40 of guava and one of mango. Section 3( 8) of the Act 1960 while defining grove land excluded the holding having trees of guava, papaya, banana and vine. In Gata No.440 virtually all the trees of guava and only one tree of mango which would not make it a grove land under Section 3( 8) but the land virtually having trees of guava, it would not qualify to be a 'grove land' under Section 3( 8) of the Act 1960. Similarl