Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -both these writ applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In both these applications the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 21-12-1982 and order dated 25-5-1986 passed by the sub-Divisional Magistrate Purnea as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively the order dated 21-6-1987 passed by the Collector, Purnea as contained in Annexure-3 as also the order dated 26-9-1992 passed by the additional Member Board of Revenue Bihar Patna as contained in annexure-4 to the writ application. 3. Two land Ceiling proceedings under the provisions of Bihar land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 were initiated against Anand Prasad Singh and his grandson Sanjay kumar Singh. Both the proceedings aforementioned were amalgamated. 4. The petitioner of CWJC No.13151 of 1992 purchased 10.45 acres of land by a registered deed of sale dated 11-8-1961 from late Satrughan prasad Singh father of respondent No.4 comprising of plot Nos.2031.1332, 2247, 2329, 2343, 2363 and 2376 appertaining to Khatas No.32 and 34 of village Maldiha, whereas the petitioner of CWJC Nos.13108 of 1992 purchased 15.75 acres of land bearing plot Nos.14101, 1416, 1417, 2015, 2030 and 2049 of village Maldiha from Satrughan Prasad Singh son of anand Prasad Singh. The names of the petitioners were mutated. 5. A proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act was initiated against the petitioner. In that proceeding they filed their documents. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in that proceeding has held that as the valuation is low, the said transfers have to be annulled. 6. According to the petitioner no evidence was produced by the state of Bihar. 7. However, Sub-Divisional Magistrate again heard the purchasers while disposing of the objection of the landholder filed under Sec.10 (3)of the Act. He in his order dated 25-5-1986 stated that no papers had been produced. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by an order dated 2-6-1987. Thereafter, the petitioners and others moved the Board of Revenue in Revision and by a common order the revision petitions filed by the petitioners and others were dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Thereafter, the petitioners and others moved the Board of Revenue in Revision and by a common order the revision petitions filed by the petitioners and others were dismissed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that from a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application it would appear that the case of petitioner in CWJC No.13151/92 has been considered in Paragraph 14 of his order dated 25-5-1986 as contained in annexure-2 to the writ application and that of petitioner in CWJC No.13108/92 has been considered in Paragraph 15 thereof. 9. The only reason assigned for annulling the transfers was low valuation of the land. However, the Member Board of Revenue had taken into consideration other factors for which there was no materials on records. 10. In the orders impugned in this application, apart from the reason that the price of land was low, no other reason has been assigned by the collector under the Act. No evidence, however, has been adduced by the State or by the petitioner in order to prove that the transaction in question had been effected with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act. Payment of lo ,v consideration, although is a relevant factor, but the same cannot be said to be the outy factor for holding that the transfers were made to defeat the provisions of the Act. The same, in my opinion, has also to be proved by adducing cogent evidence other factors including valuation of the similar land prevailing at the time when the transaction was effected. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of. this Court in Bachan Singh V/s. The S. D. O. , 1977 BBCJ 728 . 11. As the State has not adduced any evidence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 12. This application, is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order as contained in Annexures-1 to 4 of each writ application is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Before the said authority, it would be open to the parties to adduce their respective evidences: 13. 12. This application, is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order as contained in Annexures-1 to 4 of each writ application is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Before the said authority, it would be open to the parties to adduce their respective evidences: 13. Before parting with this case, however, we may observe that a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act is an independent proceedings. 14. In that view of the matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have heard the transferors while considering an objection filed by the landholder. Consequently no appeal or revision was maintainable at the instance of the transferors against an order sejecting the objection by the collector filed by the landholder under Sec.10 (3) of the said Act. We may further observe that while deciding a proceeding under Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, the object and purport of the Act should receive utmost consideration at the hands of the Collector. No transaction which is effected in order to defeat the provisions of the Ac: should be recognised. While, however, passing such an order the materials brought on records must be considered so as to come to a definite finding that a transaction which has been effected after 22nd October, 1959 was done with an object of defeating of or in contravention of the said Act or for retaining benami or farzi lands in excess of the ceiling area. Thus the materials supporting one of the other factors enumerated in Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act must be brought on records so as to enable to Collector to satisfy himself that the transfer question is fit to be annulled. 15. However, such satisfaction on the part of the Collector has to be an objective one and not a subjective one. As order passed under Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act is not only amenable to appeal and revision but also can fall for judicial review of this Court. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, these applications are allowed and the matter is remitted to the Collector under the said Act for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.