K.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur dated 14.2.1977 in Ceiling Appeal No. 624 of 1976, Vishwanath Singh v. U. P. State and others whereby 28.67 acres irrigated land of the petitioner has been declared as surplus.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in treating the petitioner's land either Irrigated or Ekfasla without indicating the essential ingredients of section 4-A or Explanation added to section 4 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hence their findings stand vitiated in law. Secondly he has contended that some of the petitioner's land was ancestral and his son Madan Gopal had share therein, but without separating the share of his son of determination of surplus are of the petitioner has been done. Thirdly he has contended that he had executed a lease in respect of 48.72 acres of the land in favour of his son Madam Gopal and the same has been wrongly treated as the land of the petitioner and the finding by the appellate authority that the aforesaid lease was not genuine is based on surmise. The appellate authority has failed to consider the oral evidence on the record regarding the possession of the lessee on the disputed land. Learned counsel for the State has refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority in the present case are based on appraisal of evidence and the same should not be interfered with.
(3.) I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I find that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in deciding the petitioner's land either irrigated or Ekfasla. The appellate authority has dealt with the contentions of the appellant before it in the following words:- "The above classification of the holding of the appellant will show that he holds 3.56 acres of irrigated land there is no dispute on the point that no canal of schedule I passes through the villages in which the holding of the appellant are situate this area should have bsen classified as Ekfasli land and not irrigated land. The appellant, therefore, is enitled to the benefit of 1.90 acres of irrigated land on account." Explanation to section 4 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act reads thus:- "For the purposes of clause (ii), the expression 'single crop land' means any un-irrigated land capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State Irrigation Work or private irrigation work." ;