J. M. L. SINHA, J.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Etawah, passed in an appeal under Sec. 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

The relevant facts can briefly be stated as follows:

In response to a notice issued under Sec. 10 of the Act showing 24. 36 acres irrigated land as surplus, Jaswant Singh filed objections, inter alia, about plot no. 625 of village Lachhiya Mau, plot no. 173 of village Bhujapur and plot no. 139 of village Madhopur wherein the petitioner stated that the said plots were wrongly shown to be irrigated plots. The Prescribed Authority over-ruled the objections filed by the petitioner vide his judgment dated 26th October, 1974, and held that all the three plots were irrigated plots. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred on appeal. The learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, concurred with the conclusion reached by the Prescribed Authority and vide his judgment dated 21st April, 1975, dismissed the appeal in so far as the aforesaid plots were concerned-court.

The petitioner has, therefore, come up to this The petition first came up for disposal before a learned Single Judge of this court and one of the contentions raised before him was that, in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 4-A of the Act, the Civil Judge could not rely on the oral evidence of Gur Prasad, Lekhpal, in coming to the conclusion whether plot nos. 625, 173 and 139 were irrigated plots, and the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, therefore, suffers from an obvious error. Reliance for this argument was placed before the learned Single Judge on a decision of this Court in the case of Ghasiram v. State (1977 (3) ALR 438 ). The learned Single Judge entertained some doubt about the correctness of the decision in the case of Ghasiram v. State (supra) and directed that the case may be referred to a larger Bench. It is thus that the case has come up for disposal before us.

Since the whole case has been referred to this Bench for disposal, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on all the points involved therein.

The first question that falls for consideration is whether in proceedings under Sec. 4-A of the Act parties can adduce oral evidence and the Prescribed Authority can look into the same for determining irrigated land.

The term irrigated land has been defined in Sec. 3 (11) of the Act which reads as follows:

irrigated land means land determined as such in the manner laid down in Sec. 4-A.

In view of the definition of the term irrigated land contained in Sec. 3 (11) of the Act, it is obvious that the Prescribed Authority can only act in accordance with the procedure contained in Sec. 4-A of the Act in order to determine the same. It is not open to the Prescribed Authority to adopt a procedure inconsistent with the provisions of 5ec. 4-A of the Act in order to find out irrigated land.

The relevant part of Sec. 4-A reads as follows:

"the Prescribed Authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 fasli, 1379 fasli and 1380 fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspec tion where it considers necessary, and thereupon if the Prescribed Authority is of opinion:

Firstly (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by

(i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in notification no. 1579-W-XXIII-62-W- 1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amen ded from time to time or; (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

(b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or

Secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceili

Click Here to Read the rest of this document