ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh D/- 5-1-1977 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 196 of 1976 Darul Oloom Ahle Sunnat Madarsa Ashrafiya v. State of U. P.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate authority has committed patent mistake in treating the petitioners unirrigated land as irrigated one. He has further contended that the appellate authority has erred in relying upon the statement of Lekhpal in determining the petitioners land as irrigated one. He has also contended that he has moved an application to review the impugned order wherein he has mentioned that some of the plots he had exchanged and in determining the ceiling limit of the petitioner the plots which he got through exchange as well as the plots which he had given in exchange were treated as the land of. the petitioner. The review application has been dismissed by the appellate authority through its order dated 27th April, 1977. 3. Learned counsel for the State has tried to justify the finding recorded by the appellate authority. He has contended that the writ petition is misconceived as the order dismissing the review application has not been sought to be quashed. 4. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is true that the petitioner has not challenged the order rejecting the review petition, which would tantamount to confirm the order passed by the appellate authority in appeal. If the order passed by the appellate authority in appeal suffers from patent mistake, it deserves to be quashed and in that view of the matter if the petitioner had not sought for quashing the order on the application for review, that would not stand in the way of the petitioner in maintaining the present writ petition. 5. As regards the petitioners claim that the unirrigated land of the petitioner has been erroneously held as irrigated one, it is evident from the observation of the appellate authority that he has not decided the claim of the petitioner in consonance of the dictum of law laid down in AIR 1978 All 9 which stands confirmed by the Division Bench ruling reported in 1978 All WC 577 : (1979 All LJ 25). 6. 6. It is also note-worthy that it has been emphasised that the ceiling authorities should determine the irrigated land of the tenure-holder under Section 4-A of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on the basis of the relevant extracts i.e. from 1378F. to 1380F and the statement of Lekhpal or any other officer cannot be treated as substitute for documentary evidence. In the present case since the appellate authority has relied upon the statement of the Lekhpal its judgment is vitiated in law. The appellate authority should examine the petitioners claim of unirrigated land in consonance with the dictum of law mentioned supra. The appellate authority has failed to indicate as to what area of plot claimed by the petitioner as unirrigated had actually grown two crops in any of the relevant years. The appellate authority has also failed to indicate as to the class and composition of the soil of the plot claimed by the petitioner as unirrigated and unless it has been done it could not be treated as irrigated one in view of the provisions of Section 4-A thirdly of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In this view of the matter I find that the appellate authority has patently erred in treating the land of the petitioner as irrigated one. 7. Since the petitioner has brought to the notice of the appellate authority, though by means of review application, that a mistake has crept in the impugned judgment due to the circumstances that the plots which had come to the petitioner by way of exchange as well as the plots which the petitioner had given by way of exchange were treated as the land of the petitioner, it is desirable that the appellate authority should examine the claim of the petitioner based on the theory of exchange. If it is correct then the land given by way of exchange should be excluded or if the theory of exchange is not true then the land only belonging to the petitioner should be considered within the ceiling limit of the petitioner, and the land which he has received through exchange should be excluded from the ceiling limit of the petitioner. 8. 8. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority dated 5-1-1977 is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to unirrigated land afresh in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the appellate authority shall decide the claim of the petitioner based on the theory of exchange. No order as to costs.