ORDER S. J. Hyder, J. - These are two connected writ petitions which arise out of proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Bulandshar dated September 12, 1980 and the order passed by the prescribed authority on 1st April, 1980. The petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10550 of 1980 are Gurpal Singh and three others whereas the only petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 207 of 1981 is Mukhtar Singh. 2. It is not in controversy that Gurpal Singh is the brother of Mukhtar Singh and that Amrik Singh, petitioner 2 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10550 of 1980, is the son of Gurpal Singh. Petitioners 3 and 4 of the last mentioned writ petition are the ladies of the family of Mukhtar Singh and Gurpal Singh. It is also not in dispute that Mukhtar Singh and Gurpal Singh were originally residents of that part of India which now forms part of Pakistan and that they migrated to the territories of India on the creation of the sister dominion of Pakistan. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners found it difficult to purchase land in the state of Punjab on account of paucity of land and consequent high price. In these circumstances, it is disclosed in the writ petition, the petitioners jointly purchased land from M/s. Ajib Singh and : others by means of a registered sale-deed dated June 12, 1968. Immediately on the ; purchase of the said land, the names of the petitioners were jointly recorded against the holding transferred in their favour by Ajaib Singh and others and they were in joint cultivatory possession of the land from the date of the sale-deed. It is then stated that a notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act was issued in the name of Mukhtar Singh alone. In the said notice, the total area of the holding was shown as 81 Bigha 13 Biswa and Mukhtar Singh was shown entitled to have a ceiling limit of 52 Bigha 16 Biswa. It was proposed to declare 28 Bigha 17 Biswa as surplus land of Mukhtar Singh. The correctness of the claim made in the notice was contested by Mukhtar Singh who filed an objection against it. It was proposed to declare 28 Bigha 17 Biswa as surplus land of Mukhtar Singh. The correctness of the claim made in the notice was contested by Mukhtar Singh who filed an objection against it. In this objection, it was, inter alia, stated by him that he along with Gurpal Singh and others were joint tenure-holders of the entire holding and the same could not be treated as belonging to him alone. On a notice issued to Gurpal Singh and others under the provisions of R. 3-AA, a similar contention was also raised on their behalf. 4. It may be stated that the matter came up earlier before this court on the basis of a writ petition filed by Mukhtar Singh and others and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the prescribed authority. After the order of remand, passed by this court, parties led additional evidence before the prescribed authority who overruled the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the two connected writ petitions. The view taken by the prescribed authority has been upheld by the II Additional District Judge. It is in these circumstances that the two writ petitions have again been filed before this Court. 5. On a reading of the impugned judgments passed by the II Additional District Judge and the prescribed authority, it would appear that in deciding the case against the petitioners, the two courts have placed reliance on Explanations I and II of sub-s. (1) of S.-5 of the Act. The correctness of the view taken by the two courts below has been strongly assailed before me and it has been urged that the orders passed by the said courts are vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the record. 6. Since the two connected writ petitions are based on an interpretation of Explanations 1 and II of sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act, it would be appropriate to read the said Explanations at this stage. "(Explanation I- 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. "(Explanation I- 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. Explanation II- (If on or before January 24, 1971, any land was held by a person who continues to be in its actual cultivators possession and the name of any other person is entered in the annual register after the said date) either in addition to or to the exclusion of the former and whether on the basis of a deed of transfer or licence or on the basis of a decree, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority, that the first mentioned person continues to hold the land and that it is so held by him , ostensibly in the name of the second mentioned person.)." 7. Explanation II of sub-s. (1) of S. 5 applies to a case of a fictitious transfer in which the transferor remains in actual possession and the name of the transferee is entered in the annual register for the first time after January 24, 1971. From the facts stated above which have not been controverted on behalf of a State, Mukhtar Singh was not a transferor. The names of all the transferees were entered in the annual register much before January 24, 1971. Explanation II aforesaid was thus wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case. The decision of the prescribed authority as well as the II Additional District Judge is that Ajaib Singh and others had executed an effective sale deed dated June 12, 1968 and had no interest left after the date of such transfer. They have also reached the conclusion that the names of the transferees were mufated in the annual register in pursuance of the said sale-deed. It has perforce to be held that the judgments of the prescribed authority and the II Additional District Judge are vitiated by a gross misinterpretation of Explanation II of sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act. 8. Now as regards the applicability of Explanation. It is concerned, it may be stated, that after the order of remand passed by this court, the only evidence led on behalf of the State was that of the Naib Tehsildar and the village Lekhpal. 8. Now as regards the applicability of Explanation. It is concerned, it may be stated, that after the order of remand passed by this court, the only evidence led on behalf of the State was that of the Naib Tehsildar and the village Lekhpal. Both these Officers, according to the admitted case of the parties had been posted in the circle a few years prior to 1-4-1980. They could not have any personal knowledge about the consideration paid in respect of the sale-deed dated June 12, 1968. Nevertheless the prescribed authority as well as the II Additional District Judge have held that the consideration for the sale deed was paid by Mukhtar Singh alone and not by the petitioners in the connected writ petition No. 10550 of 1980. In this view of the matter, they have arrived at the conclusion that Mukhtar Singh was the true owner of the holding and that the names of the petitioners in the connected writ petition No. 10550 of 1980 had been shown in the sale deed only as ostensible owners. I am afraid I cannot accept the view taken by the said courts as the decision on this point is vitiated by a manifest error of law. 9. In order to constitute persons as tenure holders it is not necessary that each one of them should take actual part in cultivation. It is possible for co-tenure holders to possess such rights for their common benefit and entrust the actual work of cultivation to any one of the co-tenure holders. The fact that Mukhtar Singh alone was performing the cultivator operations and the petitioners of connected writ petition were doing some other work is, therefore, a neutral circumstance. It does not go to show that the sale deed dated June 12, 1968 was executed on the basis of a consideration supplied by Mukhtar Singh alone. As already stated, the Naib Tahsildar and the Lekhpal have no personal knowledge about the transaction, and the evidence was wholly inadequate to ignore the entries in the annual registers. It does not go to show that the sale deed dated June 12, 1968 was executed on the basis of a consideration supplied by Mukhtar Singh alone. As already stated, the Naib Tahsildar and the Lekhpal have no personal knowledge about the transaction, and the evidence was wholly inadequate to ignore the entries in the annual registers. It may be stated that the law is well settled on the point that a sale deed must prevail according to its apparent tenor and the burden of proving that the ostensible is not the actual state of affairs is on the person who alleges that proposition In this view of law, it was for the State to establish by positive and affirmative evidence that the consideration of the sale deed dated June 12, 1968 was provided by Mukhtar Singh. This it has failed to do and the prescribed authority and the II Additional District Judge should have felt no difficulty in sustaining the objections filed by the petitioners in the two connected writ petitions. The judgments of the two courts below in so far as they are baser on Explanation 1 of S. 511) of the Act are, therefore, legally unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. 10. The result is that Civil Misc. Writ No. 207 of 1981 and Civil Misc. Writ No. 10550 of 1980 are hereby allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order of the prescribed authority dated April 1, 1980 and that of the II Additional District Judge dated September 12, 1980. A writ of mandamus is further issued commanding the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in the two connecting writ petitions. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.