Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Dr. Vinod Rai for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner claims himself to be a bona fide purchaser of the holding in dispute from one Asha Kumari. Asha Kumari in turn claimed herself to be the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute after having obtained Bhumidhari rights in terms of Section 134 to 136 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that Asha Kumari was earlier declared as Sirdar in terms of the order passed by the consolidation officer in objections filed under Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963 vide order dated3rd November, 1971. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. The name of Asha Kumari came to be recorded whereafter the petitioners purchased it from her through a registered sale-deed dated 31st December, 1975.

2. Proceedings were undertaken against Smt. Jogeshwari Devi, the respondent No. 5 under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 for declaring the disputed land in excess of the ceiling limit as surplus. The disputed holding also became part of the said adjudication and was declared as surplus in the hands of Jogeshwari Devi on 27th July, 1976. The petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about the said proceedings, and according to the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioners their names were mutated and continued to be recorded as tenure holders. The petitioners have also brought on record the Khatauni (record of rights) to contend their names were continuing as such as late as the year 1991 (1396 Fasli). A copy of the said Khatauni is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

3. The petitioners contend that the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring the land as surplus in the hands of Smt. Jogeshwari Devi came to be implemented in the revenue record for the first time between the year 1989 and 1991 whereafter the petitioners filed an application for recall of the said order of the prescribed authority dated 27.7.1976. The ground taken by the petitioners was clearly that they were bona fide purchasers and the land was never part of the holding of Smt. Jogeshwari Devi. The prescribed authority proceeded to examine the said claim and also issued a notice to Smt. Jogeshwari Devi the respondent herein. The matter was contested and the application filed by the petitioner for recall of the said order was rejected on 20.8.1994. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed on 28.11.1994 and the review application was also rejected on 27.1.1995.

4. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition contending that the order of the consolidation officer in favour of Asha Kumari that had been implemented, might have been passed after the appointed date, yet it gave a declaration of her rights which was preexisting prior to 24th January, 1971. The contention is that the order could not have been ignored and the Prescribed Authority ought to have examined the same in the light of Section 5 (6) (b) of the 1960 Act. The submission is that it was a bona fide transaction and it was a legal adjudication under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 where the rights of Asha Kumari were adjudicated after contest where the State was also a party during the consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the same being a bona fide transaction and not a transaction to avoid the ceiling proceedings, the same could not have been ignored under the provisions aforesaid. He further contends that according to the second explanation appended to the aforesaid provision the burden was discharged by the petitioner by proving that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer had been bona fidely undertaken and the order became final whereby the petitioner’s predecessor in interest came to be declared as Sirdar. The prescribed authority treating the said tran