JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.7.1993 passed by the opposite party No. 1 i.e. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that a notice under Section 10(2) was issued to opposite party No. 2 namely Sri Basudeo Pal, the original tenure holder mentioning therein 40.5 acres of land as irrigated land and an area of 22.462 acres was proposed to be surplus land. After the aforesaid notice the objection was filed mentioning therein that the entire land of village Suabojh has wrongly been shown as irrigated land. He also mentioned the fact in the objection that there are 2 acres of land as USAR land and on some of the portion, there is building etc. On the aforesaid objections, the prescribed authority appointed an Advocate Commission and the Advocate Commissioner prepared a report and submitted the same mentioning therein the status of the land. In the report, Advocate Commissioner mentioned a tube-well installed over the agricultural land.

4. After considering the aforesaid report the prescribed authority decided the objection of opposite party No. 2 on 10.3.1975, on the premises that the land is irrigated and 4.126 acres of land was declared as surplus land.

5. After the aforesaid order dated 10.3.1975, the opposite party No. 2 preferred an appeal on the ground that the order dated 10.3.1975 is in violation of mandate of Section 4-A of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1960). The appeal filed by the opposite party No. 2 was dismissed by the 4th Additional and District Sessions Judge, Kheri vide order dated 17.10.1975, wherein holding that Khasra pertaining 1378, 1379 and 1380 fasli are indicating that the land is capable of growing two crops and there is private irrigation work.

6. He submits that being aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 17.10.1975, the opposite party No. 2 preferred Writ Petition No. 2973 of 1975 before Hon'ble High Court. The High Court vide order dated 2.4.1979 remanded back the matter before the learned District Judge to decide the appeal afresh with an observation that the appellate authority has to record a finding that whether the land is within the effective command area of lift irrigation canal or State tube-well or private tube-well irrigation work and further whether the composition of soil is such, which is capable of growing two crops in each year.

7. After the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority, the appellate authority remanded back the matter to the prescribed authority for deciding the question of irrigated or unirrigated land.

8. On the aforesaid remand, the prescribed authority heard the matter wherein the extract of the Khasra 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli of village Dalpur and Salawat Nagar was filed by the State and the statement of witnesses namely Sri Ram Avtar and Sri Ram Giri Lekhpal was recorded and they were examined. He added that infact the consolidation proceedings were going on in the village, as such the Khasra 1378 fasli of village Suabojh was available only and that too was filed before the prescribed authority. He submits that after the abovesaid, the judgment and order was passed on 25.10.1985 by the prescribed authority wherein the case was dismissed and the objection of the opposite party No. 2 was rejected, while recording the fact that there is a tube-well and entire land is irrigated land. While dismissing the aforesaid case he also mentioned that land is of such quality where sugarcane crop and wheat are being grown and as such he declared 4.162 acres as surplus land. The judgment and order date