ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, .1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority, a true copy of the order whereof has been annexed and marked Annexure 5 to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court against the decision of the Prescribed Authority and a true copy of the judgment of the appellate court dated 10-5-1978 is Annexure 3 to the petition. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. B. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel contended before me that plots Nos. 55 and 59 of village Dhantauli were wrongly treated as single crop land and they should have been treated as un-irrigated land. It has come in evidence that the Khasra entries during the Fails years 1378, 1379 and 1380 in respect of these two plots were placed before the authorities below. A true copy of the said Extract of the Khasra has been annexed to the writ petition and marked Annexure 1. In respect of these two plots, in 1378 F. the source of irrigation is mentioned as canal. The irrigated area, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised, as shown in the Khasra is undoubtedly not large. The learned counsel contended that before a piece of land can be held to be single crop land in terms of the Explanation to Section 4 (ii) of the Act, the authorities below should specifically record a clear finding that there is an assured source of irrigation and that in consequence of such assured source of irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work, the land is capable of producing one crop in an agricultural vear. The learned counsel next contended that in the background in which amendment was made in Section 4 (ii) of the Act and the present Explanation was added to the said sub-section by U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975 and by which amending Act S. 4-A of the Act was also laced on the statute book, it should be eld that the considerations, which are relevant under Section 4-A of the Act, should be considered to be relevant for the purpose of interpreting the Explanation to Section 4 (ii) of the Act. I have considered these submissions. 4. It should be seen that in view of the Division Bench pronouncement in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 3598 of 1976 Shiv Ram Singh v. State, it has now been laid down that there is a presumption about the correctness of the particulars entered in form 3 prepared under S. 10 (1) of the Act and which is sent to the tenure-holders. It is for the tenure-holder to establish that the particular entries made in the said form are not correct. In the instant case, Form 3 has not been placed before me. In the objection, which was filed, in ground No. 6 a general objection was taken that the land, which had been shown as single crop land, was not single crop land and that the said land did not have any such irrigation facility available which could definitely supply the needed quantity of water for the land in question. It should be seen that the objection did not advert to any particular plot, and did not give any other detail about the nature of the irrigation facility available and why the same was insufficient. The petitioner has also not placed before me the oral evidence which was led from his side in the witness box to show that any specific objection was taken in respect of the aforesaid two plots and the manner of such objection. In the absence of these details, it is difficult to extend any relief to the petitioner on the ground that the two plots should have been treated as single crop land. I have already stated above that the Khasra itself shows that the canal was available for irrigation. In the absence of these details, it is difficult to extend any relief to the petitioner on the ground that the two plots should have been treated as single crop land. I have already stated above that the Khasra itself shows that the canal was available for irrigation. It is not the requirement in the Explanation that actually the entire plot should be shown to have been irrigated, the only requirement is that the assured irrigation should be there and the land should be capable of producing one crop. It has not come in evidence that the petitioner or any of his witnesses stated that the aforesaid plots were not capable of producing even one crop in the year. Even in Para 6 of the objection, it has not been said that the plots were not capable of producing even one crop. In a situation like this, I cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel that it was the imperative duty of the authorities below to have specifically used the language contained in the aforesaid Explanation to Section 4 (ii) of the Act for arriving at the finding that the said two plots were single crop land. It was really for the tenure-holder to have established by cogent evidence, after taking the necessary objection in his objection petition under Section 10 (2) of the Act, that the said two plots could not be treated as single crop land on account of certain reasons to be specifically stated. 5. So far as the learned counsels contention that Section 4-A of the Act and the Explanation should be deemed to be part of one and the same scheme introduced by the aforesaid U. P. Act of 1975 is concerned, it seems to me that even though both the provisions were introduced by the one and the same Act, still, in the language of the two provisions there are important differences. S. 4-A of the Act specifically refers to the Khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380. Fs. but in the Explanation to Section 4 (ii) of the Act, the language used is in an agricultural year. S. 4-A of the Act specifically refers to the Khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380. Fs. but in the Explanation to Section 4 (ii) of the Act, the language used is in an agricultural year. The requirements, which have been laid down under Section 4-A of the Act,-directing the Prescribed Authority to examine the relevant Khasra for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fs and other material and the other directions given there in the said provision, are nowhere to be found in the Explanation. However, Sri Mehrotra, emphasised that the expression "Assured irrigation occurring in S. 4 (ii) of the Act should be considered in the light of the fact that formerly in the definition of irrigated land as given m Section 3 (11) of the Act, the expression assured irrigation had been used. It is necessary here to notice the legislative changes which took place in the relevant provisions of the Ceiling Law. The expression irrigated land was introduced by the U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973 in the Ceiling law. It was defined as under:- "Irrigated land means land which is determined in the manner prescribed to be capable of growing at least two crops in any agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work." It may be seen that the expression manner prescribed was used in the said definition. The expression "manner prescribed" was meant to refer to R. 3 as it then stood in the Rules framed under the Act. The said R. 3 was identical with the present Section 4-A of the Act. Thereafter by the Amending Act, U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975, the said R. 3 was almost bodily lifted into parent Act itself in the shape of S. 1-A of the Act. By the same Act the definition of irrigated land was amended as below:- "Irrigated land means land which is determined in the manner laid down in Section 4-A to be capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work." It will be seen that again the expression assured irrigation was retained. However, it was felt that this changed definition also again caused confusion, because on the one hand it referred to Section 4-A and on the other hand it also contained certain requirements which could not be said to be absolutely identical with the requirements of Section 4-A of the Act. Therefore, by the U. P. Amending Ordinance of 1975 (U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975) the above definition was replaced by the following definition which at present occurs in the Act: "Irrigated land" means land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4-A". It has seemed to me that in the background of these successive legislative changes, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is obvious that the existence of the expression assured irrigation occurring in Section 3 (11) of the Act was found to be causing confusion and inconsistency, and accordingly it was deleted subsequently. The expression however, was retained in the Explanation to S. 4 (ii) of the Act. 6. Accordingly, this petition lacks merits and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.