JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. 1. THIS writ Petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. THE petitioner was a tenure-holder of certain land and a notice u/Sec. 10 (2) of the Act was served on him. He filed objections. One of the objections was that the petitioner had by a registered sale deed dated 20th March, 1972, transferred certain land in favour of Naina Kumari for a sale consideration of Rs.7000/- and the land sold should be excluded from his holding, while determining the ceiling area, applicable to him. The Prescribed Authority rejected this part of the objections on the ground that the sale deed had been executed after 24th January 1972, and therefore, the transfer had to be ignored while determining the ceiling area and the surplus land, in view of the provisions of Sec. 5 (6) of the Act. 3. THE petitioner filed an appeal and the appeal in this regard was also dismissed. 4. BEING aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The writ petition has been pressed only in regard to the question as to whether the transfer made under the sale-deed dated 20th March, 1972, should be ignored, or not. From the record, it is clear that the sale deed dated 20th March, 1972, was followed by mutation in favour of Naina Kumari. In this connection in para 15 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that after the transfer the land was mutated in favour of Naina Kumari. This factual assertion made in the para was not denied in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit. 5. THE Prescribed Authority did not find that the sale deed was executed for an inadequate consideration. However, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the execution of the sale deed was proved neither to be bonafide nor for adequate consideration. In its judgment the appellate authority observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the circumstances which constrained him to execute the sale deed and after coming to this conclusion the appellate authority held that the Prescribed Authority was right in coming to this conclusion that the sale was not proved to be bonafide or for adequate consideration. 6. In its judgment the appellate authority observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the circumstances which constrained him to execute the sale deed and after coming to this conclusion the appellate authority held that the Prescribed Authority was right in coming to this conclusion that the sale was not proved to be bonafide or for adequate consideration. 6. IN the first place, the law does not require that the circumstances which constrain an owner of agricultural land to sell the land should be recited in the sale deed, itself. Of course, the presence or absence of such recital in the sale-deed may be relevant to determine whether the sale was bonafide or not within the meaning of the Act. However, the absence of such a recital is not decisive of the matter. The adequacy or the inadequacy of the sale consideration is an objective fact to be determined by reference to the market value of the land on or about the date on which the sale deed in question was executed. The order of the appellate authority discloses that the appellate authority did not come to the conclusion that the sale was for inadequate consideration, on an examination of the relevant factors for determining the adequacy or otherwise of the sale consideration. As has already been seen that after the execution of the sale deed the land, sold, was mutated in the name of vendee. The mutation would show that possession of the land was transferred to the vendee. It has not been found that the sale was a sham transaction in the sense that though ostensible title to the land had been passed to the vendee, the real ownership and effective control of the land remained with the vendor. In the circumstances, the finding of the appellate authority that the sale was not a bona-fide transaction also suffers from manifest error of law. 7. IN these circumstance, the order of the appellate authority dated 2nd of August, 1976 insofar as it has held that the transfer under the sale deed dated 20th March, 1972 has to be ignored, is quashed. The appellate authority will again decide the appeal and determine the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The appellate authority will again decide the appeal and determine the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. While determining the appeal, it will be open to the parties to apply to the appellate authority to receive additional evidence. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this writ petition Ordered accordingly.