R.M.SAHAI, J. - (1.) ON 24-11-1978 a direction was issued by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ 2539/77 to appellate authority to decide the appeal under Section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and find if plot Nos. 71 and 170 and 121 were unirrigated within Section 4-A of the Act, after affording opportunity to tenure-holder to file certified copies of relevant khasra extract.
(2.) FROM Khasras extract filed after remand, appellate authority found that on major portion of land sugar cane crop was grown in either of the years and in some year, crops were also grown over plot No. 71. He further found that as all the land was showed to have been irrigated none of the plots could be treated to be unirrigated. For source of irrigation he placed reliance on entry in CLH Form V which according to him bore out that entire area of plot Nos. 121 and 170 was irrigated and there existed source of irrigation in all the three relevant years. He further presumed that as sugarcane and paddy crops were grown there existed an assured source of irrigation. In order to treat land as irrigated, Section 4-A lays down two require­ments on that two crops should have been grown in respective years mentioned in sub-clauses (1) and (2) and in third the class and composition of soil should be such that it is capable of growing the crops in an agricultural year and second that there should be source of irrigation in the manner described in various clauses. In absence of any, the requirement of the section would not be complete and the land cannot be treated as irrigated.
(3.) THE finding that two crops were grown may be assumed to be correct as it is based either on entries is Khasra or on legal fiction contained in Explana­tion III to Section 4-A. But that was not sufficient to render the land irrigat­ed. The appellate authority misunderstood the law completely. It was not a matter of assumption. The growing of sugarcane crop gives rise to presump­tion of two crops only. It could not further be presumed from this that there must have been assured source of irrigation. There was no warrant for this presumption. A tenure holder may irrigate his land by a private well or by any other source. But that would not render the land irrigated under Section 4-A. A private source of irrigation must be as defined in Section 3 (4). The appellate authority further committed error in relying on CLH Form 5. This form relates to 'misalband' register. It appears he intended to refer to CLH Form 3 but by mistake he has written CLH Form V. But that form by itself was not sufficient for this finding. It was necessary for him to find if irrigation mentioned in CLH Form was from any of the source as provided in law.;