( 1 ) HEARD Sri. S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Rai, brief holder for the State of U. P. , for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE only point raised by the petitioners counsel is that in spite of directions of the Supreme court dated 1. 12. 1987 given In S. L. P. No. 3654 of 1987 that the petitioners ceiling area be re-determined after arriving at a finding as to whether the plots of the petitioner are irrigated and submerged under water or not, the Courts below have not adverted to the question involved in light of judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner moved an application on 14. 2. 1989 before the Prescribed Authority for spot inspection so that the plots, which are submerged under water and the plots which are sandy, may be verified. Earlier also, as stated in the writ petition, spot inspection was made by Lekhpal and Naib Tehsildar on 28. 12. 1974 and copies of reports of lekhpal and Naib Tehsildar have been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexures-1 and 2. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application for spot inspection by his order dated 25. 3. 1989 on the ground that the question of irrigated land and land submerged