R. M. Sahai, J.

1. IN this petition directed against order of Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring 11.48 acres irrigated land as surplus. The learned counsel for petitioner has raised three points that the courts below committed an error in treating plot nos. 73 and 76 as unirrigated, that khata no. 113 was not petitioner's exclusive khata and lastly that the entire plot no. 156 was grove.

2. IN support of the argument regarding plot nos. 73 and 76 the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the revenue extracts of 1378 F., 1379 F. and 1380 F. and has urged that on these two plots no source of irrigation having been shown it could not be treated as irrigated - The argument appears to be plausible but after considering the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge it has to be rejected as devoid of any merit. It has been found by him that the petitioner made interpolations in the khasra extracts and the Additional District Judge summoned the original and after comparing the two he was satisfied that the entries in some of the columns had been arrested and in the original k