M.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The controversy is a short one. Some land was treated as single crop land by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the Appellate Court has also affirmed the said finding.

2. NOW the tenure holder has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri D. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Shri Chauhan made a very interesting point and on the strict phraseology used in the Explanation to Sec. 4. One may find some merit also in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the Explanation to Sec. 4 lays down that the expression 'single crop land' will mean only such unirrigated land which is capable of growing one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work. He contends that if the land is capable of producing more than one crop then on the language of the provisions, it will have to be treated unirrigated and not a single crop land and the