- (1.) B. Dikshit, J. A notice under Section 29 (b) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short Act') has given rise to this petition. The notice has been issued to petitioner as State claims the land which was unirrigated to have become irrigated after enforcement of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (in short Amending Act' ). The claim of State is that cer tain land, which was unirrigated has come within the command area of a State tube-well constructed after enforcement of Amending Act and, therefore, the Ceil ing area of petitioners is to be re-determined.
(2.) THE determination of unirrigated land, which has become irrigated after enforcement of U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973, is to be done in accordance with Section 4-A, Secondly. THE claim of State before appellate court has been that Khasras entries for the year 1378-F to 1380-F are not relevant as the notice to petitioner ha Been issued under Section 29 (b) in the year 1983. This stand of State to exclude Khasra entries for the year 1378-F to 1380-F also leave the re-determination of ceiling area and surplus land of petitioner, if any, in the light of Section 4-A, Secondly. Section 4-A Secondly is the only provision providing for redetermination of Ceiling area when unirrigated land becomes irrigated after enforcement of Amend ing Act and it is that test which is to be applied in determining the irrigated land held by petitioner, if we see the scope of Section 4-A Firstly and Thirdly, it is apparent that their application has been limited for irrigated land on date of enfor cement of Amending Act, the date being 8-64973, while under Section 4-A Secondly the test for determining irrigated land has been provided where unirrigated land after enforcement of Amending Act becomes irrigated due to facility of State Irrigation Work being made available in an agricultural year and two crops being sown. The first condition that after enforcement of Amending Act the irriga tion facility in an agricultural year from State Irrigation Work become available stands fulfilled in the case. The petitioner has mainly disputed the want of condi tion of two crops being sown in an agricultural year. The Prescribed Authority did not hold said land to be irrigated in absence of two crops being grown after irriga tion facility became available to the land in dispute from State Irrigation Work. The appellate authority has reversed the finding of Prescribed Authority and h
(3.) LD the land as irrigated. He heLD the land to be irrigated as according to him the land was within the command areas of a State Irrigation Work and it was capable of growing two crops. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellant court has applied wrong test by holding the land capable of growing the crops to be treated as irrigated land under Section 4-A secondly as it provides that only that land is to be treated as irrigated where two crops were actually grown and not merely because the land is capable of growing two crops. Learned Standing Counsel opposed this argument and submitted that as the land was capable of growing two crops, there fore, the same has been rightly treated to be irrigated land.;