ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 13-1-1971 in Ceiling Appeal No. 283 of 1976, Mahendra Singh and others v. State of U. P. 2. The Prescribed Authority through its judgment dated 19th June, 1976, had declared 28.57 hectares irrigated land as surplus area of the petitioner No. 1. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner Mahendra Singh is purchaser of plots Nos. 493/2 and 493/3 from Kali Char an, son of Teeka Ram, resident of village Amirnagar, Tehsil Nawabganj through a sale deed dated 24-9-1971. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are pattedars of holdings standing in their names from Pradhan of village Gularia. It appears that petitioner Mahendra Singh was found in possession over all the plots, hence the ceiling authorities treated him real tenure holder and served a notice under Section 10, sub-section (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). 4. Another notice was served upon petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 also treating them as ostensible owner of the holding standing in their names. The petitioner Mahendra Singh as well as the pattadars (petitioners Nos. 2 to 26) contested the notice issued by the ceiling authorities and the crux of the objection is that Mahendra Singh is not the tenure-holder of the whole area shown in the notice and the holdings standing in the names of various Pattedars belong to them. 5. It is noteworthy that petitioner Mahendra Singh had purchased the area standing in his name from one Kali Charan in the year 1971 whereas various holdings standing in the names of the present petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are continuing in their names from the year 1966, but a proceeding for cancellation of the pattas in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 was initiated under Section 198 of the U. P, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and all the pattas were held as genuine by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawabganj through his order dated 22nd Feb., 1978. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly through his order dated 6-6-1969. Yet the Prescribed Authority did not accept the claims of the objectors and held Mahendra Singh petitioner, as tenure-holder of total area and treated petitioners Nos. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly through his order dated 6-6-1969. Yet the Prescribed Authority did not accept the claims of the objectors and held Mahendra Singh petitioner, as tenure-holder of total area and treated petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 as ostensible owners and declared the surplus area of Mahendra Singh. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the Prescribed Authority all objectors had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through impugned judgment dated 13-1-1977. The petitioners have come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended before me that the ceiling authorities have indulged in surmises and conjectures and have wrongly held Mahendra Singh, petitioner as tenure-holder of the plots including the plots standing in the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 and have thus patently erred in determining the ceiling limit of the petitioner Mahendra Singh and surplus area of his. The main grievance put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the impugned judgments are based on no legal evidence and the findings recorded by the authorities are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. 8. Learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. He has very much stressed that the term 'held' in Explanation to Section 5 of the Act would mean only 'possessed' by a tenure-holder. Since Mahendra Singh was found in possession of the whole area, he was rightly served with a notice and the declaration of surplus area was fully justified in the circumstances of the present case specially when the pattedars (i. e. petitioners Nos. 2 to 26) were not residents of the village where the disputed plots were situate. 9. I have gone through the impugned judgments. I find that the 'Prescribed Authority found petitioner Mahendra Singh as a resident of village Gularia where the disputed land is situate and other petitioners non-residents of that village and that petitioners Mahendra Singh was in possession of the total area indicated in the notice, hence the Prescribed Authority treated petitioner Mahendra Singh as tenure-holder of the total area in his possession and declared the surplus area. Relevant extract from the judgment of the Prescribed Authority is quoted below: "......Almost all the witnesses deposed on behalf of the objector have failed to tell the exact location of their plots, names of the adjoining villages of village Guldhai, and other facts concerning elections etc. which go to show that none of them is residing in the village and is in the actual cultivatory possession of the land in dispute. Secondly I also find that no independent witness has been examined by the tenure-holder on the fact of possession. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of the tenure-holder or on the other 26 witnesses who too seem to be the relations of the tenure-holder although this fact has been concealed by him. In view of the observations made above, I am convinced that the tenure-holder Sri Mahendra Singh is in the actual cultivatory possession of the total land involved in the case and the names of the other 25 persons are shown as ostensible. The provisional ceiling statements are, therefore, confirmed.............." 10. Similarly the appellate authority has also treated the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 as non-residents of the village Guldhai and found petitioner Mahendra Singh in possession over the total area including the area standing in the names of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 and has thus arrived at the conclusion that the declaration of surplus area made by the Prescribed Authority was correct. Relevant extract from the judgment of the appellate authority is given as below: "The learned Prescribed Authority, therefore, rightly disbelieved the oral evidence of the objectors and found that they were all fictitious persons. No doubt there is plethora of documentary evidence showing that names of all the 25 objectors were separately recorded and that the identification cards and pass books from the Ganna Sahakari Society were issued against all the objectors separately, but even the latest identification card of Devendra Singh does not contain the photo which should have been there according to the space for photo. That apart the 24 receipts Nos. 2 to 25 at one place appear to have been issued at the same time to one person and kept by that single individual as appears from their condition. That apart the 24 receipts Nos. 2 to 25 at one place appear to have been issued at the same time to one person and kept by that single individual as appears from their condition. If these receipts of Nazrana while granting patta had been issued separately and kept separately by the patta holders, their condition would not have been so fresh and neat as they appear even now. That apart there is another circumstance that all the objectors incidentally but no less surprisingly filed their objections on the same day i. e. 1st Jan., 1976 and also engaged the same counsel. These objectors have also filed jointly this appeal on the same date through the same counsel and that further shows that there is a single objector who has contested the notices and in this court of appeal also a single lawyer has argued and only single person accompanied him at the time of arguments which further goes to show that irrespective of the fact that there is no documentary evidence nor eye-witness account on behalf of the State to prove that Mahendra Singh alone is the tenure-holder and has been actually cultivating all these plots and that all these pattas were sham and fictitious but, the various circumstances discussed above and the conduct of the other objectors clearly go to show that in fact all these pattas were sham transactions in the name of the different persons though actually and in fact Mahendra Singh obtained these pattas and has been cultivating them, I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of fact of the learned Prescribed Authority on the point. The appeal has, therefore, no force and is liable to be dismissed." 11. When the appellate court observed that there is no documentary evidence or eye-witness account on behalf of the State to prove that Mahendra Singh alone is the tenure-holder. 1 do not find any other basis to hold that petitioner Mahendra Singh can be termed as tenure-holder of all the plots standing in the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26. 12. To my mind the findings recorded by the appellate authority are based on surmises and conjectures in the name of circumstantial evidence. 1 do not find any other basis to hold that petitioner Mahendra Singh can be termed as tenure-holder of all the plots standing in the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26. 12. To my mind the findings recorded by the appellate authority are based on surmises and conjectures in the name of circumstantial evidence. I have not been able to find out any material indicated in the judgment of either authority to justify the findings that petitioner Mahendra Singh may be termed as tenure-holder of all the plots shown as his tenancy in the notice served upon him, unless letting of all the plots by the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha to the tenure-holder Mahendra Singh is established beyond doubt, petitioner Mahendra Singh cannot be termed as tenure-holder of the whole area. In the circumstances of this case even if petitioner Mahendra Singh was found in possession of the whole area shown in his notice and that petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 were non-residents of the village in which the disputed land was situate, the definite inference cannot be drawn that petitioner Mahendra Singh would be tenure-holder of the land. By virtue of the fact that Mahendra Singh was found in possession, the total area standing in his name as well as that in the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26, he cannot be termed as tenure-holder of the area. At best it can be said that he was in possession of the total area. Unless letting by Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to petitioner Mahendra Singh is established in relation to the evidence on the record, the finding would be termed as based on 'no evidence. In the present case petitioner Mahendra Singh purchased some area in the year 1971 whereas petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 had got area in their names from the year 1966 and there is no finding by any authority to the effect that petitioner Mahendra Singh as also resident of the village from before 1966 and managed to obtain leases in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 ostensibly. 13. I have a feeling that the findings recorded by the ceiling authorities in this case are based on surmises and conjectures. The documentary evidence on the record further indicates that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 were really tenure-holders of the area standing in their names. 2 to 26 ostensibly. 13. I have a feeling that the findings recorded by the ceiling authorities in this case are based on surmises and conjectures. The documentary evidence on the record further indicates that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 were really tenure-holders of the area standing in their names. Section 5 of the Ceiling Act reads thus : "On and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. Explanation 1. In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly In the name of any other person, shall be taken into account." 14. Section 3, sub-clause (17) of the Ceiling Act defines 'tenure holder as a person who is the holder of a holding; whereas Section 3, sub-clause (9) of the Act defines 'holding meaning as the land or lands held by a person as a bhumidhar, sirdar, assami of Gaon Sabha or an asami mentioned in Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or as a tenant under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 other than a sub-tenant, or as a Government lessee, or as a 6ub-lessee of a Government lessee, where the period of the sub-lease is co-extensive with the period of the lease. 15. The term 'held cannot mean in Section 5 of the Act only 'possession. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State to the effect that if petitioner Mahendra Singh was found in possession of total area mentioned in his notice, he would be held as the tenure-holder of the same area. 16. As I have indicated above that the letting of the area by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to petitioner Mahendra Singh is not established by any evidence on the record, it is difficult to say that Mahendra Singh was holding the total area standing in the name of his as well as the area standing in the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26. 2 to 26. Even if he was found in possession over the total area or his possession continued from the date of various pattas in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 26, he did not prescribe title to the area in his possession on 8th June, 1973 when the Act was enforced. In this view of the matter I find that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in holding petitioner Mahendra Singh as tenure-holder of the area mentioned in his notice. Since I have not been able to find any evidence worth the name in either of the judgments to indicate that petitioner Mahendra Singh was really tenure-holder of the area treated by the ceiling authorities as his tenancy, I think it proper to quash the judgment and to direct the appellate authority to record a categorical finding in relation to legal evidence on the record whether Mahendra Singh is a tenure-holder of the area shown in his notice. As the ceiling authorities have not examined the claim of the petitioner in correct perspective, it is desirable that their judgments may be quashed and the appellate authority may be directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. Unless petitioner Mahendra Singh is held tenure-holder of the areas shown in his notice, the determination of surplus area in the present case stands vitiated in law. I am not agreeable to the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the State that as the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are non-residents of the village and petitioner Mahendra Singh is in possession of the total area the determination of surplus area should be maintained as he could not possess area more than the ceiling limit. In the circumstances of the present case, it is incumbent upon the ceiling authorities to find out as to whether petitioner Mahendra Singh was really a tenure-holder of the area shown in his notice. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have erred in treating the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 as relations of petitioner Mahendra Singh. According to him there is no evidence to justify the finding. Even if the petitioners Nos. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have erred in treating the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 as relations of petitioner Mahendra Singh. According to him there is no evidence to justify the finding. Even if the petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are relations of petitioner No. 1, unless it is established that the land was really sublet to petitioner Mahendra Singh, the latter cannot be held to be tenure-holder of the total area even if he was in possession either in his own capacity or on behalf of pattedars. The finding about letting by the landholder to petitioner Mahendra Singh is essential before the land can be treated as held by petitioner Mahendra Singh or it is shown that Mahendra Singh acquired right to the area due to his long and continuous possession over the total area. The ceiling authorities have not examined the claim from correct angle. 18. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the petitioners claim afresh and to indicate as to whether the total area shown in the notice of the petitioner No. 2 was really let out to him by the Pradhan of the village or he had acquired right thereto by virtue of his long and continuous possession on relevant date i.e. 8th June, 1973. No order as to costs.