JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.:- In these appeals by special leave, the appellants assail the interpretation given to certain provisions. of S. 4-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended by U. P. Acts 18 of 1973 and 20 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Alliahabad High Court. Conflicting interpretations had been given by single Judges on the relevant provisions and hence a reference was made in Kallu v. State of U. P. and Ors. (Civil Misc. Civil Petition No. 11370 of 1975) to which connected writ petitions were tagged on to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on two questions viz.

"1. What is the true scope and effect of sub-clause (b) of clause firstly of S. 4-A ?

2. In particular, whether the said sub-clause would take in the entire plot only if two crops were grown in every inch of the land covered by it."

The Division Bench, in its reported judgment Kallu v. State of U. P., 1979 All U 1113 has discussed the matter and answered the two questions as under (at pp. 1117-18):

"Clause firstly of S. 4-A requires the Prescribed Authority to form an opinion as to whether, during the material Fasli years, irrigation facilities were available from such sources as are enumerated therein in respect of any crop. The relevant consideration is merely the existence of irrigation facilities and not its actual utilisation. This is understandably so because if facilities are available and yet a tenure holder neglects to make use of them there is no justifiable reason why he should have an advantage over those who have been up and doing while he has chosen to be idle and asleep. We have already held that land and ,plot cannot be equated. If irrigation facilities of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (a) of Clause firstly of S. 4-A are available only to a part of the total area of which a plot is comprised it cannot be held that irrigation facilities were available for the entire plot. In such cases, the Prescribed Authority on a correct interpretation of sub-clause (a) of Clause firstly will have to treat only that area of a tenure holders plot as irrigated land to which irrigation facilities were available. We are consequently of the opinion that if a large plot consists partly of an area to which irrigation facilities are available as also some to which irrigation facilities are not available only that area thereof will be covered by sub-clause(a) of Clause firstly to which irrigation -facilities were in fact available. Of course user land as defined in the Act and determined in the manner provided by the Rules will have to he excluded even though irrigation facilities may have been available to it. Similarly other varieties of land exempted under S. 6 will have to be excluded from consideration.

As far as sub clause (b) of Clause firstly is concerned, the requirement is that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years (emphasis supplied) The expression such land, it is obvious, means land referred to in sub-clause (a) of Cl. firstly The word used in sub-clause (b) is in and not over and consequently if the crops were grown in any portion of the area of a plot to which irrigation facility was available under sub-clause (a) of Clause firstly, the entire area to which irrigation facility was available shall have to be treated as land in which 1 two crops were grown. The requirement of sub clause (b) of Clause firstly of S. 4-A is not that every inch of the land to which irrigation facilities were available in the material years should have grown double crops. To take a hypothetical example, if to a plot of land consisting of 50 acres, irrigation facilities were available to an area of 20 acres and on any portion of such 20 acres at least two crops were grown in any of the years 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli, the entire area of 20 acres to which irrigation facilities were available will have to word in is one of common use. If it is said that an individual lives in