SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21. 12. 1982 declaring 37 bighas, 17 biswas and 4 biswansis as surplus land of the petitioner and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal against the said order on 28. 4. 1983 and the review application against the said order on 27. 9. 1983. ( 2 ) A notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the petitioner whereby 37 bighas, 9 biswas and 4 biswansis of land of the petitioner was proposed to be declared as surplus land. The petitioner filed objection against the notice. He sought exclusion of the area which he sold on 26. 10. 1971 to Smt. Virmati, Smt. Shanti Devi and Mst. Durga in respect of 27 Kachcha Bighas of land. It was further alleged that Plot No. 262 was unirrigated and a portion of Plot No. 104 was grove land. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 23. 11. 1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30. 7. 1975 with a little modification that instead of 37 bighas. 9 biswas and 4 biswansis, it was reduced to 36 bighas, 7 biswas and 4 biswansis. The petitioner filed Writ petition No. 9690 of 1975. The writ petition was allowed and the case was remanded with the following observation : "in the result, the writ petition is entitled to succeed and the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge are liable to be quashed. As the orders are wholly unsatisfactory and it has not been possible to find out what evidence was led by the petitioner on the first point about the adequacy of consideration for the sale deed and its having been made in good faith, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the two orders should be quashed on this point also although on the face of the record made available in this Court, it cannot be said that the findings suffer from any error of law. Inasmuch as, the orders are being quashed in respect of Other points. Inasmuch as, the orders are being quashed in respect of Other points. It will be open to the petitioner to lead such evidence as may be necessary and legally permissible in support of his objections on all the points. " ( 3 ) ON remand of the case by this Court, the matter was again taken up by the Prescribed authority. The Prescribed Authority again rejected his objection on 21. 12. 1982. The petitioner further preferred appeal against the said order before respondent No. 2. The appeal was dismissed on 28. 4. 1983. The petitioner submitted a review application. The said review application has been rejected vide order dated 27. 9. 1983. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three points which were raised before respondent nos. 2 and 3. It ts urged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 erroneously held that the petitioner had not executed the sale deed dated 26. 10. 1971 in good faith and for adequate consideration. He was entitled to the benefit of clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act which provides that a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument not being a benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family shall not be ignored while determining the surplus land of a tenure-holder. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 have held that the sale transaction was not bona fide for two reasons. Firstly, in the sale deed dated 26,10. 1971. the reason for sale of the land was mentioned that it was being sold as the vendor is not getting any benefit from the land and he was getting good price for it but in the objection filed by the petitioner, a different reason was mentioned that the land was sold for the purpose of marriage of his grand-daughter Smt. Chandrawati alias Munni. This contradiction was not explained. Secondly, the land in question was sold for Rs. 8,000. It was inadequate consideration taking into account the area of land sold. This contradiction was not explained. Secondly, the land in question was sold for Rs. 8,000. It was inadequate consideration taking into account the area of land sold. This Court while remanding the matter permitted the petitioner to lead evidence as may be necessary and legally permissible in support of his objection on all the points raised by him in the writ petition. The petitioner was entitled to lead evidence that the sale deed dated 26. 10. 1971 was executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. ( 6 ) AFTER the remand, the petitioner filed an application before the Prescribed Authority on 9. 12. 1982 that another date may be fixed to take his evidence. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application by making the following observation : "in my opinion, there is no need of any oral evidence of Shital Singh. Therefore, this application is rejected. " ( 7 ) THE Prescribed Authority failed to take into consideration the directions given by this Court. The petitioner was permitted to lead evidence which was necessary and permissible under law. The question was as to whether the sale transaction was made in good faith and for adequate consideration. The adequacy of consideration could have been proved by producing documentary evidence, e. g. , exemplars as well as oral evidence. After such evidence was produced, it was open to the Prescribed Authority to find out as to whether the sale consideration keeping in view the area and the nature of the land was adequate. ( 8 ) LEARNED standing counsel contended that the petitioner in his objection stated that the land was sold by the petitioner as he required money for the marriage of his grand-daughter, Chandrawati, while in the sale deed, it was mentioned that the land was being sold as it was not profitable and he was getting sufficient price of the land on sale. It was, however, for the petitioner to explain the contradiction by producing the evidence and to prove the market value of the land at the time of sale. ( 9 ) IN Lal Krishna Kumar Pal v. Civil Judge, Basti and others. It was, however, for the petitioner to explain the contradiction by producing the evidence and to prove the market value of the land at the time of sale. ( 9 ) IN Lal Krishna Kumar Pal v. Civil Judge, Basti and others. 1978 ALJ 864, it was held that presence or absence of recital in the sale deed may be relevant to determine whether the sale deed was bona fide or not within the meaning of the Act but the absence of such recital is itself not decisive of the matter. The adequacy or inadequacy of the sale consideration is an objective fact to be determined by reference of market value of the land on or about the date on which the sale deed in question was executed. ( 10 ) IN Murlt Manohar Sharmo, v. Prescribed Authority and others. 1982 ALJ 156, the Court did not accept the sale transaction as bona fide for the reason that the tenure-holder gave contradictory evidence on two different occasions to substantiate the need for which he had transferred the land In question. The statement of the tenure-holder was recorded in the first ceiling proceeding where he stated that he had executed the sale deed for meeting expenses in connection with cultivation and for other necessities. In subsequent ceiling proceeding, he made statement that he executed the sale deed with a view to pay off his debts which he had incurred and he also needed money for the purpose of cultivation. The Court held that there was contradiction in the statement and the appellate court was Justified in holding that the sale deeds were not executed bona Jide. ( 11 ) IN Jateshwar Nath Tiwari v. State of U. P. and others. 1991 RD 91, the Court emphasised that the need for execution of sale deed is a relevant factor in determining whether the sale deed was executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. The Court found that the petitioner therein did not say a word about the need for execution of sale deed and considering all the relevant aspects it was found that the sale deed was not executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. ( 12 ) IT is for the tenure-holder to establish the reason for sale of land as it was executed after the appointed date. ( 12 ) IT is for the tenure-holder to establish the reason for sale of land as it was executed after the appointed date. The burden is upon him to prove that he executed the sale, deed in good faith and for adequate consideration. The sale deed executed after 24th January, 1971 is to be ignored under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. The exception is that it has been executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. This has to be examined in each case keeping in view all the attending circumstances and material evidence on the record. ( 13 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire plot No. 262 is not irrigated. The Prescribed Authority has recorded the finding that entire plot is irrigated land as in Khasra of 1377 Fasli. 1378 Fasli and 1379 Fasli, two crops were shown to have been grown and Irrigation, has been shown by a canal. The petitioner- has not filed the copy of those Khasras to show that the observation of the Prescribed Authority is erroneous. Explanation / to Section 4a of the Act provides that the expression effective command area means an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated : (a) in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 (b) Fasli ; or (b) in any agricultural year referred to in the clause secondly, ( 14 ) THE petitioner, however, had filed an application for making local Inspection on 11. 9. 1974 before the Prescribed Authority before the case was remanded by this Court. The said application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. This Court had made an observation while remanding the matter that the Prescribed Authority is to make local inspection whenever necessary. The Prescribed Authority should have made local inspection keeping in view the observation made by this Court. ( 15 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one bigha of plot No. 104 is grove. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that in Khasra of 1375 Fasli it has been shown that 1 bigha land was covered by Guava trees. ( 15 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one bigha of plot No. 104 is grove. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that in Khasra of 1375 Fasli it has been shown that 1 bigha land was covered by Guava trees. The Guava trees are not treated as grove within the meaning of sub-section (8) of Section 3 of the Act which reads as under ; " (8) grove land means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including (guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before January 24. 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove. " ( 16 ) SRI B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was an entry in 1279 fasli and 1344 Fasli that on Plot No. 104 existed 35 guava trees, 5 mango trees, 47 Nibu trees and other trees and in these circumstances, it was necessary to examine as to whether these trees were in existence. The petitioner, in his statement before the Prescribed Authority, stated that on plot No. 104 mango trees and other trees are existing. As this Court had directed that on remand the additional evidence can be adduced, it would be appropriate that local inspection be made in respect of plot No. 04. ( 17 ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed review application against the order of the appellate authority dated 28. 4. 1983 but that was wrongly rejected. It is, however, not necessary to consider the power of review under the provisions of the Act as I have dealt with all the points raised by the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28. 4. 1983 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 shall permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence keeping in view the observation made by this Court on 1. 3,1978 and it can appoint a Commissioner for making local inspection in respect of plot Nos. 262 and 104 on an application being filed by the petitioner in that respect. 1983 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 shall permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence keeping in view the observation made by this Court on 1. 3,1978 and it can appoint a Commissioner for making local inspection in respect of plot Nos. 262 and 104 on an application being filed by the petitioner in that respect. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner files certified copy of this order within two weeks from today before respondent no. 2, the status quo as existing today in respect of the land in dispute shall be maintained. ( 19 ) THE parties shall, however, bear their own costs. .