S.U.Khan - (1.) -At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents hence only the arguments of learned standing counsel appearing for petitioner-State were heard.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 24.9.1982 given by District Judge, Bareilly in Ceiling Appeal No. 14 of 1980 filed by contesting respondents in this writ petition namely Natthu Singh and others. The said appeal was directed against judgment and order passed by prescribed authority under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 dated 17.12.1979 declaring 69.45 hectares of irrigated land as surplus. Earlier the said appeal had been decided on 24.7.1980. Against the said judgment writ petition was filed in this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9656 of 1980. The writ petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the appellate court to decide the appeal again. Thereafter through the impugned order dated 24.9.1982 District Judge, Bareilly decided the appeal. After remand by this Court through order passed in the earlier writ petition, the matter was confined before the appellate court only to four plots i.e. plot Nos. 2, 3, 10 and 28. It was argued in respect of said plots on behalf of the State that they were irrigated while on the other hand tenure holders contended that they were un-irrigated. As far as plot Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the appellate court by the impugned judgment remanded the matter to the prescribed authority to decide as to whether the said plots were irrigated or un-irrigated. However, plot Nos. 10 and 28 have been held by the appellate court to be un-irrigated hence this writ petition is confined only to plot Nos. 10 and 28. Appellate court perused khasras of 1377 fasli, 1378 fasli and 1380 fasli. In respect of khasra of 1379 fasli appellate court observed that it was not on record. Appellate court held that in the khasras on record no source of irrigation was mentioned against plot Nos. 10 and 28. In the khasra of 1377 fasli and 1378 fasli neither any source of irrigation was shown nor any crop was shown to be irrigated. There were some changes in the khasra of 1380 fasli. Copy of khasra of 1380 fasli has been annexed alongwith supplementary affidavit sworn on 7.3.1983. Under column No. 6 which pertains to source of irrigation boring is shown in plot Nos. 2 and 3. However in plot Nos. 10 and 28 no source of irrigation is shown. Plot No. 10 is shown to be irrigated to the extent of 50 bighas in kharif crop (total area is about 103 bigha). Under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act which provides for determination of irrigated land it is essential that there must be irrigation facility and decision regarding irrigation facility and growing of crops is basically required to be taken on the basis of khasras of 1378 to 1380 fasli. Section 4A contains private irrigation work as one of the relevant sources of irrigation. However, private irrigation work is defined under Section 3 (14) of the Act and thereunder it means "a private tubewell or a private lift irrigation work operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from a perennial water source completed before August 15, 1972". The date provided falls with 1380 fasli which corresponds to the period from 1.7.1972 to 30.6.1973. Accordingly, if crop in the year 1380 fasli was for the first time irrigated from a private irrigation work then the chances are that the said irrigation work should have been completed after 15.8.1972. Normally from 1st July till 15th August is rainy season in Uttar Pradesh hence during that period there is no question of irrigation from any man made source of irrigation or installation of such source during that period. In any case it was essential from the State to lead evidence in this regard which was not done. Moreover merely because in the khasra of 1380 fasli a particular plot or part thereof is shown to be irrigated, there cannot be any presumption that there was any source of irrigation as mentioned under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act. In the khasra there is specific column for source of irrigation. In the copy of khasra of 1380 fasli for all the above 4 plots and some other plots mentioned therein source of irrigation is shown against plot Nos. 2, 3 and 30. If there had been any source of irrigation in plot Nos. 10 and 28 surely it would also have been shown.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, I am unable to accept the contention of learned standing counsel that as 50 bigha of plot No. 10 is shown to be irrigated in kharif crop in the khasra of 1380 fasli hence the entire plot on the said area shall be treated to be irrigated even though no source of irrigation is mentioned. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the appellate court. Writ petition is dismissed.;