M.P.Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter called the Act.
(2.) THE petitioner received a notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act to show-cause why an area of 15.83 acres of land be not declared as surplus. THE petitioner filed a number of objections including that on 10-9-1971 he had executed one sale-deed of 10.12 acre in favour of Smt. Darupadi for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and of 11.50 acre in favour of Smt. Malti, Kumari for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and these two areas are not to be taken into consideration in determining the surplus land. It was also alleged that the sale-deeds were executed in good faith for adequate consideration and under irrevokablc instrument not being the benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure holder or other members of his family. THE learned Prescribed Authority held both these sale-deeds to be malafide on a number of grounds including that they were executed for inadequate consideration. 15.83 acre land was declared as surplus. THE petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act and reiterated his contentions. All of them except with regard to two sale-deeds were upheld and the appeal was partly allowed. The petitioner has now come to this court mainly on the ground that the two sale-deeds dated 10-9-1971 were wrongly included in his land and if they were excluded there would have been no surplus land. On 16-3-1978 this court passed an order requiring the petitioner to file a certified copy of the statement of the petitioner made before the Prescribed Authority to show what statement he had made with regard to the prevailing price of similar land in the locality where the plots comprised in the two sale-deeds are situate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the petitioner's statement in which he had stated that similar land in that area was being sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per bigha at that time. Three other witnesses deposed the same thing. No evidence was given in rebuttal. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that even at the rate of Rs. 400/- per bigha the consideration of the two sale-deeds was inadequate. The learned Additional Civil Judge, who decided the appeal, subscribed to this view and proceeded by holding that the consideration of both the sale-deeds was inadequate. It appears to have weighed heavily in arriving at the conclusion that the sale-deeds were not bonafide executed. None of the lower authorities cared to work out the consideration of the land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per bigha. If it was done it would have been evident that the consideration was adequate and then the effect of other circumstances should have been considered. There has been misreading of evidence and consequently manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether the sale-deeds were executed in good faith or not will depend on a number of factors including the consideration. The judgment of the learned Civil Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19-9-75 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad is quashed. He is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh keeping in view the observations made above. Costs on parties. Petition allowed.;