Judgment Sarwar Ali, Gobind Mohan Misbra, JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 being orders of the Sub-divisional Officer, Bagaha, the Collector, West Champaran and the Additional member, Board of Revenue, respectively. These orders have been passed under the provisions of the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. Land Ceiling case No.5/74/75 was initiated against Sri Man Mohan Bikram Shah. In that proceeding notices were issued under section 5 (iii) of the Act on the petitioner and some others. They were required to show cause as to why the same in their favour dated 29th August, 1962 by the aforesaid Sri Man Mohan Bikram shah be not annulled. Cause had been shown by the petitioner. The authorities have held against the petitioner and have annulled the transfer made in his favour on 29th August, 1962. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a bona fide purchaser for the value. Having purchased the land in question he got himself mutated after due enquiry. Before mutation there was an enquiry in which the petitioners possession was found by the State authorities. The petitioner is, therefore, paying rent to the State and getting rent receipts in token of the payment. 4. A perusal of the order of the Additional Member, board of Revenue, shows that four factors had been taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the finding of the authorities annulling the sale in favour of the petitioner was fit to be accepted. We shall, deal each of them separately. 5. The first factor which has been taken into consideration is that six sale deeds have been executed on the same date, namely, 29th August, 1962. It has to be noticed that when the sale deeds in question were executed there was no legal bar to the sale of raiyati land. The mere fact, that five transactions had been entered into on one day is not, in our view, a factor which could have been taken into consideration in finding out the benami or farzi naturef the transactions. 6. The second circumstance taken into consideration is that consideration money in respect of these transactions are wholly inadequate. The mere fact, that five transactions had been entered into on one day is not, in our view, a factor which could have been taken into consideration in finding out the benami or farzi naturef the transactions. 6. The second circumstance taken into consideration is that consideration money in respect of these transactions are wholly inadequate. We have not been able to find any material on the basis of which this inference could be drawn. No evidence was adduced before the Sub-divisional Officer to show as to what was the true value of the lands of the same quality as were transferred under the documents in question. In this connection we may usefully refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Rukmanand Bairoliya V/s. The State of Bihar and others, ( AIR 1971 SC 746 ). In that case in exercise of powers under section 4 (h)of the Act certain settlement was annulled. The ground for annulling the settlement was that the rate of rent fixed by the settlement in question was low. The conclusion was arrived at by the authorities under the Act without there being any material in support of the finding. The Supreme Court held that the factor which weighed with the authorities was thus on pure assumption and conjecture and could not be availed as basis for annulling the settlement. Since no material has been brought to our notice in support of the conclusion that the consideration in respect of transfers in question was low, we are of the view that this factor should not have weighed with the authorities in coming to the conclusion that the transfer was not bona fide. 7. The third circumstance which has been taken into consideration is that recital in the Anchal Adhikaris report that in respect of transferred land the transferor was in possession and not the transferee. It may be stated that no evidence was adduced by either party in the proceeding and this conclusion was based on the report of the Anchal Adhikari. 7. The third circumstance which has been taken into consideration is that recital in the Anchal Adhikaris report that in respect of transferred land the transferor was in possession and not the transferee. It may be stated that no evidence was adduced by either party in the proceeding and this conclusion was based on the report of the Anchal Adhikari. In relation to such report it has been pointed out by a bench of this Court in Shiv Narain Khawaray and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, (1977 BBCJ 453)as follows : "we find that the authorities below have determined the question of possession only on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, barari and not on the basis of any evidence that was led on behalf of the State. Such report cannot take place of the evidence that has to be adduced in the proceedings itself. The report is not even a statutory report. It amounts only to an assertion on behalf of the State. What is stated in the report, however, has to be proved if the same is not accepted by the other side, by adducing evidence which may be acceptable to the authorities concerned. Indeed in most of the cases question of possession will have special importance. In these writ applications we do not propose to decide the question of possession as evidence has not been led by either sids and the report, as already indicated, cannot be the basis of the decision. Indeed there was some material in favour of the petitioners in the rent receipts granted by the state. But when the question of possession was in issue, the said question in the circumstances of these cases, could not be decided on the said material alone. The proper procedure should have been to permit the State as also the petitioner to lead such evidence, either by way of affidavit or oral evidence, as they might have chosen to lead in support of their case on the question of possession and other relevant matters. This not having been done we do not think the finding of possession is sustainable in law. This not having been done we do not think the finding of possession is sustainable in law. The question of possession is so vital and important, and the findings in relation thereto being erroneous in law, that, the impuged orders holding the transfers to be covered by section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act have to be set aside". Similar is the position here. The report of the Anchal Adhikari could not take place of evidence. It is worthy of notice that name of the petitioner was mutated by the State authorities and rent receipts were being granted in token of payment of rent. This material was produced before the authorities concerned and was a circumstance on which the petitioner could legitimately rely, in the absence of rebutting evidence, to prove his possession. 8 The last factor that has been taken into consideration that the transferees do not have any household or local residence and were permanent residents of other places. This factor by itself, in our view, cannot be the basis of conclusion regarding the farzi character of the transfer. It is well known that many people have lands and are in cultivating possession thereof although they are not residents of the place where they hold land. In any event this factor was much too a weak factor to induce the authorities to come to a definite finding against the petitioner. 9. We are thus of the view that it is fit case in which Annexures 1, 2, 3 should be quashed and there should be a remand to the Sub-divisional officer. We, accordingly, allow this writ application and quash the aforesaid annexures and direct that there should be redetermination of the question whether the transfer in favour of the petitioner was fit to be annulled. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.