Rajiv Sharma, J. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiatied under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960. 3. In short the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, late Sunder Lal had agricultural land in village Banbirpur and Sisaura, Pargana Khairigari, Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri. Under the Ceiling Act, a family can hold 27.75 acres un-irrigated land but the father of the petitioner, it is said, was having land excess to the above, and as such a notice was sent to the petitioner's father, who filed an objection stating therein that his holdings are situated in village Silbari and Banbirpur and consequent to consolidation operation there is only 4.67 acres un-irrigated land in village Banbirpur and 15.01 acres in village Silbari. Thus in all there is only 19.78 acres un-irrigated land. Further the land of Gata No. 412/4-12 of village Banbirpur was sold through registered sale deed in favour of one Kulwant Singh, and the possession was also delivered. In order to substantiate his assertions, the father of the petitioner also brought on record a copy of the sale deed. 4. An objection was also filed by one Dalbir Singh stating therein that the land of Gata No. 412 area 4.12 acres situate in village Banbirpur was purchased by him through sale deed from Kulwant Singh on 26.6.1970 and the matter relating to mutation is pending before the Consolidation Officer, Nighasan. 5. The prescribed authority after considering the materials on record, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner's father and vide order dated 30th December, 1987 declared 3.733 acres land as surplus. 6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 30.12.1987, petitioner's father filed an appeal under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act, inter alia on the ground that the prescribed authority committed an error in including the land, which had already been sold by the petitioner's father to Kulwant Singh through a registered sale deed and also committed an error in recording the finding that the sale deed was executed to save the land from operation of law without verifying its authenticity. Had the land situated in village Banbirpur, i.e., Gata No. 412 area 4.12 acres was not included, there was no surplus land in the name of petitioner's father. Had the land situated in village Banbirpur, i.e., Gata No. 412 area 4.12 acres was not included, there was no surplus land in the name of petitioner's father. The appellate authority vide its order dated 2nd August, 1991 rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the prescribed authority. Hence this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the sale deed was executed in the year 1968 and as such it cannot be doubted to be sham when under the provisions of Ceiling Act, the sale deed which have been executed before 24th June, 1971 by the tenure holder, it would not be included in holding of the tenure holder but both the courts below committed material irregularity. Therefore, the assessment of excess land is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 8. On behalf of private respondents, it has been argued that the prescribed authority has declared an area of 3.733 acres un-irrigated from the holding of the petitioner as surplus land under the Ceiling Act. The answering private respondents are the landless labours and the same was allotted to them after due procedure of law. Lastly, it has been argued that there is no error in the impugned orders declaring the land to be surplus under the Ceiling Act. 9. On the other hand learned standing counsel supported the judgment and order passed by the authorities below. It was urged that the said judgment and orders were concluded by concurrent findings of facts and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petition according to him was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 10. At the out-set, it is relevant to point out that this Court while entertaining the writ petition had passed an interim order dated 30.9.1991 staying the operation of the impugned orders. 11. No doubt, in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holders, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any person can be taken into account but the same is subject to certain condition as laid down in Section 5 of the Ceiling Act. 12. 11. No doubt, in determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holders, all land held by him in his own right, whether in his own name, or ostensibly in the name of any person can be taken into account but the same is subject to certain condition as laid down in Section 5 of the Ceiling Act. 12. Section 5 (6) provides as under: "In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to: (a) a transfer in favour of any person (including Government) referred in sub-section (2); (b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority 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." 13. Of course in certain circumstances even the deeds prior to 24.1.1971 may be ignored after holding them to be sham, fictitious or collusive transaction but the same criteria which is applicable to post 24.1.1971 deed cannot be applied to pre 24.1.1971 deed. Furthermore, it is obligatory upon the authority below to look into the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds in question before discarding the same. 14. The prescribed authority after going through the evidence on the record, came to conclusion that the statements made by the witnesses are false and as such discarded their testimony. The prescribed authority was of the view that the Lekhpal found the possession of petitioner's father on the land, which was alleged to have been transferred to Kulwant Singh. The prescribed authority as also the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the question as to whether the sale deed was executed in good faith for adequate consideration, under irrevocable instrument and as to whether it was benami or was executed for immediate and deferred benefit of the tenure holder and other members of his family. In accordance with law it had to apply its mind to the said questions before discarding the said sale deed and then rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In accordance with law it had to apply its mind to the said questions before discarding the said sale deed and then rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Thus the authorities below committed an error which is apparent on the face of record in doubting the genuineness of the sale deed without recording any cogent finding. 15. In the instant case, admittedly, the sale deed was executed by the petitioner's father on 25.3.1968 in favour of Kulwant Singh. Said Kulwant Singh sold the aforesaid land of Gata No. 412 area 4.12 acres situate in village Banbirpur in favour of Dalbir Singh through a sale deed from Kulwant Singh on 26.6.1970. This instrument was again executed prior to 24.1.1971. The court below erred in not taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions, referred to above, while passing the impugned orders. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set-aside. Matter is remanded to the prescribed authority shall decide the matter within six months from the date on which the certified copy of this order is filed before it. As in the writ petition stay was granted, it is provided that possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till the disposal of the matter by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority shall also take into consideration the reduction of land, if any of the petitioner during the consolidation proceedings. It is open for the parties to adduce fresh evidence in addition to the evidence already on record.