JUDGMENT : B.N. SAPRU, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The Petitioner is the Bhumidhar of certain land situated in village Kichha District Nainital. The Petitioner was served with a notice u/s 10(2) of the Act. He filed objections. One of the objections was that he had sold plot Nos. 41, 44, 71/1, 71/3, 72/1 and 72/3 by a registered sale deed dated 5th February, 1971 to Satnam Singh and that the land had been mutated in the name of Satnam Singh and as such the area covered by the said sale deed should be excluded while determining the ceiling area applicable to him. 3. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court rejected the appeal and the appellate court has held that the Petitioner had no right to sell the land and it has held that the Petitioner held (the land) under a lease which prohibited a lessee from transferring in contravention of the terms of the lease. Consequently, it held that the transfer by way of sale was not a valid transfer. Further it held that the sale deed was also not an irrevocable instrument of transfer. It, therefore, held that the Petitioner was not entitled to have the area excluded while determining the ceiling area applicable to him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The Petitioner has filed as annexure 3' to the writ petition, a copy of the lease which is in the Standard Forms of agricultural grant for use in the colonies to be established in the Tarai and Babar Government Estates, Nainital Ganga Khadir, Meerut. Clause 1 of the lease deed prescribes that in consideration of the rent reserved the land was leased out to the grantee, his heirs and assigns as a hereditary tenant as defined in the United Provinces Tenancy Act of 1939. Clause 1 of the lease deed prescribes that in consideration of the rent reserved the land was leased out to the grantee, his heirs and assigns as a hereditary tenant as defined in the United Provinces Tenancy Act of 1939. Thereafter, Clause 5 of the lease deed provides that the grantee shall not sublet, transfer or otherwise alienate the land granted to him except with the written permission of the Land Settlement Cooperative Society, and such permission shall be given only with the approval of the grantor and in accordance with its bye-laws. It was also provided that any lease, transfer or alienation made in contravention of this condition shall be void. 6. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was not initially applicable to the area where the Petitioner's land is situated. It was, however, applied by a Notification No. 226(1)/ A-2-1(2)/69 dated June 30, 1969. The Act was made applicable to the area in question in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Act was enforced with certain modifications. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the notification and Schedule II. In serial No. 8, Section 131 has been substituted, which runs thus: Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a sirdar and shall have the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon sirdars by or under this Act; namely (iv) a lessee holding a lease under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and having rights of a hereditary tenant under the terms of the lease, but not possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale." The Petitioner's counsel argued that in view of the notification, the Petitioner became a sirdar. He further pointed out that he subsequently became a bhumidhar under item No. 7 of the notification. Thereafter, in Section 131, the following was substituted: Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a bhumidhar and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon bhumidhars by or under this Act: namely (b) every person who is admitted as sirdar of vacant land under the provisions of this Act, and (c)... ... ... ... ... 7. ... ... ... ... 7. A recital of the facts contained in paragraph 13 of the writ petition which have not been controverted by the State establish that the Petitioner deposited 20 times of the land revenue in respect of these plots on 27th June, 1970 and applied for grant of bhumidhari sanad u/s 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which was granted to him by an order of the Assistant Collector, Kicha dated 4-2-1971. 8. It is then stated that the sale deed as mentioned earlier was executed immediately after acquiring bhumidhari rights on 5-2-1971. 9. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the relevant law and all these facts which have been mentioned above have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority while deciding that the Petitioner had no right to transfer the land in question to his vendee. This is obviously correct. The order of the appellate court, therefore, suffers from a manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. 10. Before concluding the judgment in this case, it is necessary to mention that the Prescribed Authority had held that the sale cannot be accepted as genuine as the Petitioner had not stated in the sale-deed the reason which held him to enter into the transaction of sale. The appellate court held that the reason given by the Prescribed Authority for not accepting the sale deed was unsound. There is no mandatory requirement of law that there shall be recital in the sale deed of the circumstances which induced the vendor to execute the sale-deed, It is true that very often the need of the vendor is recited in the sale-deed. Its absence does not vitiate the sale-deed. In a given set of facts, the absence of a recital may be a circumstance in determining whether the reason subsequently given by the vendor for executing the sale deed was correct or not but the absence of such a recital is only one circumstance which may be taken into account. The other circumstances in this regard have also to be taken into account. 11. The decision of the appellate authority that the transfer was not an irrevocable instrument of the transaction suffers from a manifest error of law. The other circumstances in this regard have also to be taken into account. 11. The decision of the appellate authority that the transfer was not an irrevocable instrument of the transaction suffers from a manifest error of law. As explained earlier, that the Petitioner had become bhumidhar and consequently he had under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had acquired a right to execute the sale-deed in question which was an irrevocable instrument of transfer. 12. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the order of the appellate authority has not dealt with the considerations which have to be borne in mind while determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder. If the transfer has been made after 24th day of January, 1971, the relevant provisions are contained in Section 5(6) of the Act. The appellate Authority has to determine whether the transfer was executed in good faith and was for an adequate consideration and whether it was entered into for the deferred benefit of the members of the family of the tenure-holder. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The Appellate Authority will decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs.