JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh dated 18th July, 1978 in an appeal under section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged two points before me. Firstly he contended that the sale deed in respect of plot no. 135 executed in the year 1963 was not taken into account by the lower appellate court specially when mutation had taken in the name of transferees and the aforesaid fact was noted in the relevant extracts for the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli. Secondly he urged that the lower appellate court has wrongly treated plots nos. 62, 83, 107, 141 and 142 as irrigated land and thus the calculation of surplus area in the case of the petitioner is patently erroneous. Learned counsel for the opposite parties urged before me that the plea based on sale deed of the year 1968 was not raised before the Prescribed authority, hence the appellate court was fully justified in not permitting the point to be raised at the appellate stage and thus the appellate court did not commit any mistake of law apparent on the face of the record. Secondly it was pointed out to me that the judgment of the appellate authority did not suffer from any mistake of law apparent on the face of record as it was based on appreciation of the evidence. I have examined the respective contentions of the parties I think that this writ petition should succeed and the judgment of the appellate court should be quashed. While dealing with the first submission the lower appellate court observed that it was argued that plots nos. 62, 83, 107, 141 and 142 were unirrigated and the aforesaid plots have been mentioned along with other plots in that paragraph and the appellate authority has made the following observations: "I have gone through the above khasra extracts. Plots no. 45 area 27 Karis, 152 area 741 karis, 186 area 580 karis and 238 area 963 karis of village Hasanpur are shown unirrigated as defined in U. P. Act 1 of 1%1, in the above khasra. No source of irrigation through any private or State irrigation works are mentioned in the above khasra extract. The learned Prescribed Authority held that plots are irrigated through tubewell no. 8. No source of irrigation through any private or State irrigation works are mentioned in the above khasra extract. The learned Prescribed Authority held that plots are irrigated through tubewell no. 8. It appears that the learned Prescribed Authority had not scrutinised the above khasra extract property. The irrigation through tubewell no 8 is mentioned against plot no. 1, 140 while irrigation through tubewell no 120 is mentioned against plot nos. 76, 78 to 83 and 88 to 92 in the Khasra extract for the year 1380 fasli and same is the position in another khasra. As such, the learned Prescribed Authority has wrongly held that above plots are irrigated through tubewell no. 8. The above khasra extract clearly shows that plot nos. 45, 152, 153, 155, 186 and 238 do not come within the definition of irrigated land." But while dealing with plot nos. 62,81,107,141 and 142 it has been observed as below: "They are not mentioned unirrigated in all the khasra extract of 1378 to 1380 Fasli. In the absence of it, these plots cannot be treated as unirrigated." Section 4A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act defines how irrigated land is to be determined and section 3 subclause (II) defines irrigated land means land which is determined in the manner (laid down in section 4A) to be capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year in consequence of assured source of irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work. The lower appellate court has failed to apply its mind to section 4A and section 3 subclause (U) of the above mentioned Act. In this view of the matter the judgment of the lower appellate court is patently erroneous as it has failed to consider the essential requirements under law for holding a particular land as irrigated one. Thus I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the State that the judgment of the lower appellate court is based on apprisal of evidence on record. I am satisfied that the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. The lower appellate court has not indicated the source of irrigation so far as plot nos. 62, 83, 107. I am satisfied that the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. The lower appellate court has not indicated the source of irrigation so far as plot nos. 62, 83, 107. 141 and 142 are concerned, nor it is clear as to whether the whole area of the aforesaid plots was capable of growing two crops or had grown two crops in the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli. In Ghashi Ram petitioner v. State of U. P.( A. I. R. 1978 All 9.), respondent, a learned Single Judge of this Court has pointed out the duties of the Prescribed Authority in determining the irrigated lai,d urder section 4A of the Act and I thjnk that the lower appellate court has not examined the facts of the present case as is necessary in view of the aforesaid ruling. Thus in my opinion the judgment of the lower appellate court is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the sale of plot no. 135 in the year 1968 is concerned, I think that the lower appellate court has not exercised its discretion judicially. It is true that the pica about the sale of plot no. 133 was not taken before the Prescribed Authority, but it is the duty of the Prescribed Authority to examine the Khasras for the jears 1378 to 1380 Fasli while examining the nature of the land as irrigated one and when the aforesaid documents indicate that some of the plots stand in the names of transferees a pertinent question arises whether the aforesaid plots belong to the tenureholder or to the transferees mentioned in the aforesaid documents. When the appellant had raised a specific ground before the lower appellate court and the ground could be supported on the materials on record, it was not proper for the lower appellate court to refuse permission to the appellant for raising the point based on sale of plot no. 135 before it. The provisions of ihe Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are corjfibcatory in nature and deprives a person of valuable right in the property. 135 before it. The provisions of ihe Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are corjfibcatory in nature and deprives a person of valuable right in the property. It is but proper for an authority to take liberal view and the authority should not take recourse to technicalities rather the attitude of the authority should be such that the tenureholder should not be put to hardship. The learned counsel for the State very much emphasised that the lower appellate court was within its jurisdiction not to peimit the point which was not the subject matter of the objection before the Prescribed Authority. It is true that the plea was not taken before the Prescribed Authority, but in the circumstances of the present case when the relevant document itself indicated that some of the plots stood in the names of transferees, it was proper for the lower appellate court to have permitted the appellant to demonstrate his claim based on the sale deed in respect of plot no 135. However, I have pointed out the mistake of law apparent on the face of record in the judgment of the lower appellate court so far as plot nos. 62, 85, 107, 141 and 142 are concerned ordinarily I would not have interfered with the discretion of the lower appellate court, but in the circumstances of the present case, the judgment of the appellate authority is being quashed, it would be open to the appellate authority to reconsider its exercise of the discretionary power so far as the claim of the present petitioner with regard to the sale of plot no. 135 is concerned. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority is quashed and a direction is issued to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. Costs on patties.