JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of Civil Judge, Jhansi dated November 4, 1978 in Misc. Civ1 Appeal No. 273 of 1975, Phundi Lal v. State of U. P. One of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner's land has wrongly been held by the appellate authority as single crop land. He has further contended that the burden has been placed wrongly on the shoulders of petitioner to indicate that he has failed to establish that the land of the petitioner was not Ek Fasla. In Section 4 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act it has been provided as below: "For purposes of determining the ceiling are under Section 5 or any exemption under Section 6 (i) ........ (ii) one and onehalf hectares of single crop land or two and a half hectares of any other unirrigated land in the following areas, namely (a) Bundelkhand." It is noteworthy that the petitioner is a resident of Bundelkhand and his land is situate in that area. Explanation to Section 4 of the aforesaid Act reads thus: "For the purposes of clause (ii), the expression 'Single crop land' means any unirrigated land capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State Irrigation work or private irrigation work." Private Irrigation Work has been defined in Section 3, subclause (14) as below: '' 'private irrigation work' means a private tubewell, 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. State Irrigation Work has also been defined in Section 3, subclause (15) which reads thus: " 'State irrigation work' means a canal as defined in the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act. State Irrigation Work has also been defined in Section 3, subclause (15) which reads thus: " 'State irrigation work' means a canal as defined in the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act. 1873, or a State Tubewell as defined in the United Provinces State Tubewells Act, 1936, or lift irrigation work constructed, maintained or controlled by the State Government and operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from any perennial water source." In my opinion when the ceiling authorities decide a particular plot as a single crop area it is the duty of the ceiling authorities to indicate that the plot was unirrigated land but capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation work. The duty is upon the ceiling authorities to prepare C.H. Forms Nos. 3 and 5 in accordance with law and when the dispute; has been raised before the Prescribed Authority that a particular plot is not a single crop land it becomes the duty of the authority to determine as to whether the particular plot was capable of producing one single crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work. In the present case I do not find that the appellate authority has approached the case from correct angle. Rather, it has placed burden upon the petitioner Phunidi Lal to establish that there were no irrigation facilities. It may be assumed that there might be irrigation facilities but that would not be sufficient to hold that the plot may be termed as single crop area. It (Ex Fasla) can be shown only when it is established that the irrigation facility was such as may be termed as measured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work and in consequence whereof the petitioner had grown one crop in the plot. Since the appellate authority has not indicated as to whether Saprar canal which passed near the disputed land was such as could be termed as assured irrigation form any State irrigation work or private irrigation work, its finding about the petitioner's land as single crop land cannot be maintained. Since the appellate authority has not indicated as to whether Saprar canal which passed near the disputed land was such as could be termed as assured irrigation form any State irrigation work or private irrigation work, its finding about the petitioner's land as single crop land cannot be maintained. For the reasons given above the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority dated November 4, 1976 is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and it may also indicate as to whether the Saprar canal comes within the provisions of Explanation 4 attached to Section 4 of the U.P.