JUDGMENT : K.P. SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 30-12-1976 in three Ceiling Appeals filed by the Petitioner before him. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in determining the ceiling area of the Petitioner without ascertaining as to what actual area was held and possessed by the Petitioners on the relevant date. He has invited my attention to the following observation made by the appellate authority: On behalf of the Appellants it was also urged that the measurements of the land as given in the Khasra and Khatauni are not correct according to the spot and, therefore, the land to which they are held entitled should be left after measurements. However, this Court can not pass such order for any discrepancy in the entries regarding the area. The Appellants should approach the revenue authorities for the same. 3. In my opinion it appears that the appellate authority has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. If the ceiling authorities are required to determine the ceiling area held and possessed by a tenure-holder on a relevant date. i.e. 8th June, 1973 it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to ascertain the truth. The proceedings before the ceiling authorities cannot wait for any determination by regular courts. In this view of the matter a plea has been raised that the area of the Petitioners is really less than the recorded area in the revenue extracts; it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to ascertain the truth and determine the controversy raised on behalf of the Petitioners. Hence I find that the appellate authority has shirked from its duty in not deciding the points raised on behalf of the Petitioners on merit. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also contended before me that on the finding recorded by the appellate authority itself the tube-wells were not of such nature as could be termed as a source of irrigation of perennial nature yet the land of the Petitioners has been termed as irrigated one on the ground that the same area of the Petitioners had been actually irrigated. But the authority did not consider this aspect of the matter that in order that the land of the Petitioners may be termed as irrigated one, it is necessary that the land must be irrigated from the canal or any lift irrigation canal or any State tube well or a private irrigation work. In the circumstances of the present case it appears that the appellate authority thinks that the land was irrigated by boring tube-well, hence the land of the Petitioners was termed at irrigated one. 5. Private irrigation work has been defined in Section 3 Sub-clause (14) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, which runs thus: "Private irrigation work" means a private tube-well, or a private lift irrigation work operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from a perennial water source, completed before August 15, 1972. 6. On the finding recorded by the appellate authority it is clear that the boring tube well was not capable of producing perennial water source. Even if the land of the Petitioners was irrigated, it cannot be said that the irrigation work was done from a private irrigation work. In this view of the matter the determination of the appellate authority that the land of the Petitioners is irrigated one appears to be patently erroneous. 7. Lastly the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged before me that in the case of the Petitioners compliance of Rule 11 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has not been done, hence a prejudice has occurred to the Petitioners. 8. In paragraph 14 of the Writ petition he has made a grievance about the aforesaid facts. The reply to the aforesaid paragraph is contained in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it has not been specifically denied that the requisite opportunity was not given to the Petitioners. I think that it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to give requisite opportunity to a tenure holder before demarcating the surplus area out of a plot determined by it. I think that it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to give requisite opportunity to a tenure holder before demarcating the surplus area out of a plot determined by it. A tenure holder has a right to indicate as to which side he may like to retain the land of a particular plot under the ceiling area and if proper opportunity is not given to the tenure holder, there are chances for taking land in an incorrect manner which may cause hardship to the tenure holder. Since there is no categorical denial of the allegations made by the Petitioners I feel that the allegations made by the Petitioners are correct and they have got no opportunity to indicate as to which side they would like to retain the land declared surplus out of plot No. 161/2-M as well as out of plot No. 161/3-M. In this view of the matter I think it is desirable that surplus area of the Petitioner out of plot No. 161/2 and 161/3 should be demarcated after complying with the provisions of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Act. 9. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed, and the judgment of the appellate authority is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the Petitioners afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by me above. No order as to costs.