JUDGMENT 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 khasra the plot was shown to have been irrigated by canal. The contention that the petitioner was not the sole tenant of khata no. 113 is equally devoid of merit as the Additional District Judge found that the consolidation operations intervened and in those proceedings the petitioner was found to be sole-tenant. It has not been shown that this finding is in any manner erroneous in law. 3. AS regards grove in plot no. 156 its 10.21 acres has been found to be grove and 5.92 irrigated land. From the facts found it is clear that there is no subdivision and the entire plot is one unit at the spot. But on local inspection the Prescribed Authority found on attempt on part of petitioner to plant grove in 5.92 within last one year or so. He further found the height of trees to be 3 to 6 ft. 4. SUB-section (8) of Section 3 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act defines grove land. But on local inspection the Prescribed Authority found on attempt on part of petitioner to plant grove in 5.92 within last one year or so. He further found the height of trees to be 3 to 6 ft. 4. SUB-section (8) of Section 3 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act defines grove land. According to this definition there must be trees on any specific piece of land in a holding, the trees must be planted before 24th January 1971 and the number of trees should be such that they preclude or when fully grown will preclude the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose. The trees which do not constitute grove within the meaning of this definition are guava, papaya, banana or vine trees. There is no finding either by the Prescribed Authority or the Additional District Judge that the trees standing on the plot in dispute were of the category mentioned above. There is no finding that any portion of the land which constituted grove was cultivated. The question in these circumstances is whether the Prescribed Authority was justified in bifurcating the specific piece of land on the basis of fresh plantation and old plantation. 5. THE words 'considerable portion thereof' are significant. If considerable portion due to planting of trees cannot primarily be used for any other purpose the entire land will be grove. In other words even if smaller area is cultivable or denuded of trees the character of the land does not cease. THE emphasis of the learned counsel for the State on words 'specific piece of land' does not carry conviction. It cannot be read in insolation. THE definition of grove in the U. P. Tenancy Act was more or less similar. It was adopted in Z. A. Act as well. It reads as under : * * * This definition came for consideration both before High Court and the Board of Revenue. In Shiv Sahai v. Har Nandan, 1963 RD 119 it was held by this court: "THE learned Judge was influenced by the fact that there had been some cultivation on the land. But the definition of grove land in the Act does not exclude cultivation altogether but merely that the number of trees should be large enough to prevent the land from being used primarily for any other purpose. But the definition of grove land in the Act does not exclude cultivation altogether but merely that the number of trees should be large enough to prevent the land from being used primarily for any other purpose. THE learned Judge over-looked the word primarily." In Wall Mohammad Khan v. Abdullah Khan, 1940 RD 30 C. C. the question was if part of the grovel and was denuded of trees could Samkndar get a decree for ejectment of that part alone. It was held : "If the trees become so far, be it on one part or on two parts or on three plots that the whole number ceases to have character of a grove the Zamindar will be entitled to possession over the whole, but if the trees are sufficiently numerous for the whole number to be grove even if there are no trees on any part of it, the defendants are entitled to retain possession." In Ram Shankar v. Rampal, 1964 RD (Board of Rev.) 255 it was held : "Where a grove had languished but the plot had not been resumed for clutivation and trees have again been planted on it and the character of a grove has been largely restored it cannot be said that the plot ceased to have the character of a grove." 6. IT is thus clear that the entire specific piece of land consisting 16.31 acres was grove. In a plot of 16 acres trees are bound to dry and fall down. The new trees on the portion may be planted. The plantation of new trees on the portion where trees have fallen down cannot change the nature of the grove if the considerable portion was planted before 24-1-71. The case of fresh plantation in a small portion cannot be worse than cultivating it or leaving it fallow. As the considerable portion of the grove was planted before 24-1-71 the entire piece of land was grove. The case of fresh plantation in a small portion cannot be worse than cultivating it or leaving it fallow. As the considerable portion of the grove was planted before 24-1-71 the entire piece of land was grove. The date of 24-1-71 has been mentioned to ensure that a tenure holder may not take advantage and adopt contrivances to defeat the provisions of law but where it is found that the major portion of the grove consisted of trees planted before 24-1-1971 there is no escape from the conclusion that the entire plot should be deemed to be a grove and the mere fact that some trees were planted after 24-1-1971 in a portion of it could not furnish a ground f or coming to the conclusion that that portion should be treated as irrigated area. The result is that this petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The order passed by the Additional District Judge and Prescribed Authority directing that 5.29 acres will be entered as irrigated land is quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to recalculate the ceiling area after taking the entire plot no. 156 as grove. 7. THE parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.