Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition and Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Earlier proceedings against the petitioner were dropped by order of this Court passed in an earlier writ petition and it was directed that as fresh notice had been issued against the petitioner, hence the matter must be heard and decided again. The Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Baghpat, District Meerut, decided the fresh proceedings through order dated 4.1.1982 (or 29.1.1982). Through the said order, it was declared that petitioner possessed 8 bighas 5 biswas 14 biswancies land as surplus. Copy of the said order is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said annexure, at the top of it bears the number of case as Case No. 99 of 1974. However, in the body of the judgment, it is mentioned that the number of case, initiated after order of the High Court, is Case No. 03 of 1976. Against the order of Prescribed Authority, petitioner filed appeal No. 82 of 1986-87. The said appeal was dismissed on 28.7.1987 by Additional Commissioner, Meerut, hence this writ petition.

2. In this writ petition, only two points have been argued. One is that the sale deed of September 1971 was wrongly refused to be ignored under Section 5(6) of the Act. The second point is that Plot No. 321, area 18 bighas 6 biswa 16 biswancies, is grove and the Court below have wrongly held otherwise.

3. However, in the judgment of the Appellate Court, it is mentioned that only the point pertaining to grove was argued before the Appellate Court. Definition of grove land is given under Section 3(8) of the Act, which is quoted below :

“‘grove land’ means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees not including [guava, papaya, banana or vine plants] planted thereon before January 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof, from being used primarily for any other purpose and the trees on such land constitute a grove.”

4. From the above definition, it is quite clear that if before 24.1.1971, sufficient number of trees were there over a piece of land, however, small (or young in age) the land will have to be treated as grove land. The crucial date 24.1.1971 falls in 1378 Fasli (1.7.1970 to 30.6.1971). In relation to the date on which sufficient number of trees had been planted, there were three types of evidences before the Courts below. One was receipt of purchase of saplings (particularly mango) from a nursery filed by the petitioner. The other was statement of Lekhpal (he was witness of the State, while Appellate Court wrongly mentioned in its judgment that he appeared as witness of petitioner tenure holder). The third was copies of Khasras of 1377, 1378 and 1380 Fasli. Neither statement of Lekhpal nor the receipt of purchase of saplings filed by the petitioners was relied upon by the Appellate Court. In my opinion, the Appellate Court rightly discarded the said evidence. For deciding the nature of land for the purpose of Ceiling Act, the most important evidence is copy of Khasra. For determining irrigated or unirrigated nature of land, Khasra of 1378 to 1380 is almost conclusive. The Appellate Court, however, committed a mistake. Firstly, it rejected the evidence of the petitioner in the form of receipt of purchase of saplings and it also rejected the evidence of Lekhpal and thereafter rejected the entries in the Khasras. On the ground that they were in conflict with receipt and statement of Lekhpal. In my opinion, the Appellate Court committed an error of law in recording such finding. Khasras are prepared by State authorities, hence State, under the facts and circumstances of the case, could not question the correctness thereof. It appears that specifically this point was not raised by the State that entries of the Khasra were wrong. In any case, if the State considered the entries in the Khasras to be wrong, it should have taken steps to correct