B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a tenure holder of certain agricultural holdings. A notice was served on him under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), In that notice plots Nos. 56, 57, 106 and 134 were shown as irrigated land. THE petitioner in his objection claimed that the lands were unirrigated and had been wrongly shown in the statement prepared and served on him under Section 10 (1) of the Act as irrigated.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the objections filed by the petitioner in this regard. THE petitioner was aggrieved by this part of the order as well as some other parts. He filed an appeal. THE appeal has been dismissed in so far as plots Nos. 56, 57, 126 and 134 are concerned. THE Appellate Authority has held that the aforesaid plots are irrigated. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Several questions were raised in this petition, but only one has been seriously argued before me, and this judgment deals with the objection of the petitioner in regard to the question as to whether his aforesaid plots were irrigated or not. Before the Appellate Authority it was conceded on behalf of the State that the land of the petitioner was not irrigated from any canal as is contemplated by Section 4-A of the Act. Therefore, the only question in issue for consideration was whether the aforesaid plots have been established to be irrigated from a private irrigation work, as defined in the Act. The relevant Khasra entries which had been filed before the authorities, have also been filed as annexure to this writ petition.
(3.) THE said entries disclosed that as far as the year 1378-F. is concerned, only plot No. 57 is shown to have been irrigated from a tube-well. In the khasra entries of 1380-F. only plot No. 134 is shown to have been irrigated from a tube well. The net result, therefore, is that as far as plots Nos. 56 and 126 are concerned, which are in the tenure of the petitioner, there were no khasra entries, to show that they were irrigated from a tube well or other private irrigation work.;