ORDER :- In response to the notice issued under S. 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner raised a number of objections. One of the objections was that Plot Nos. 1674, 1679, 1714 and 1717 of village Rajpur were not irrigated land.

2. The prescribed Authority examined the revenue extracts and held that two crops appeared to have been grown on the plots in dispute. On the basis of oral statement of Naib-Tahsildar he held the land in dispute to be irrigated. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the finding:-

" I have gone through the copies of Khasras for the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli on the record. In the aforesaid plots the source of irrigation recorded is tube-well boring, well and tube-well. Further in the Khasras two crops have been recorded in the fields."

3. The basis for determination of ceiling area is the nature of the land. In 1960 Act it was fair quality land and since 1973 it became irrigated land. To ensure uniformity and equality amongst the tenure-holders the Legislature itself laid down the basis for determining the fair quality of irrigated land. Considering the non-availability of irrigation facilities in undeveloped areas or hilly tracts it laid the manner of determination by inserting S. 4-A by U. P. Act (Amending) Act II of 1975 with effect from 8-6-1973. The anxiety to reduce element of guess work is exhibited in sub-cls. (14) and (15) of S. 3 read with sub-s. (i) of S. 4 and S. 4-A.

4. In what manner the prescribed Authority has paid lip service to these provisions is manifestly ½ illustrated by this case. The order passed by the Appellate Court is, still, more surprising.

5. The laudable objective of the Act is frustrated by the authorities empowered to implement these provisions in haste and hurry. They should not ignore for reaching consequences on a tenure-holder. The proceedings are in nature of forcible acquisition. They have to be interpreted strictly and implemented carefully. The manner in which this case has been decided not only increases litigation and multiplies arrears but defeats the purpose due to delay.

6. Section 4-A casts a duty on the prescribed Authority to - (a) examine relevant Khasras for the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli (b) latest village map (c) such other records as it may consider necessary (d) and may make local inspection if he considers necessary. As the Act was amended drastically by Act XVIII of 1973, the revenue extracts of three years preceding this Act have been adopted as basic records. But the prescribed authority has been empowered to examine other records as well. The Act purposely has omitted oral evidence of any official -

Lekhpal or Naib-Tahsildar - and has preferred to go by the records and opinion of the prescribed authority based on material mentioned in the section.

7. The oral evidence of the Naib-Tahsildar cannot be a substitute for the record mentioned in the section. Admittedly no local inspection was made nor did the authorities examine any other record. The only evidence, therefore, on which the case could be decided and which has been examined by subordinate authorities is the Khasre extract for 1378 to 1380 Fasli.

8. The petitioner and the respondents have filed these revenue extracts. The entries are not disputed.

9. Before examining the entries an argument raised on behalf of the State may be considered. On the strength of para 5 of the counter-affidavit it is argued that the land is capable of growing two crops. The argument, apart from being new, is on a complete misunderstanding of the provisions contained in the Act.

10. Section 4-A contemplates three types of situations when land can be said to be irrigated. They do not overlap. In the first category irrigation facility and growing of two crops in any of three years (i.e. 1378 to 1380). The second category is where irrigation facilities became available by State Irrigation work after 1972 and growing of two crops was sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document