ORDER S. C. Mathur, J. -This petition arises from proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this petition are stated hereinafter. The proceedings before the prescribed authority and the learned Additional District Judge were against Sri Sadhu Singh, father of the petitioners. He died after the disposal of appeal by the learned 1st Additional District Judge. This petition has accordingly been preferred by his sons. 2. In spite of opportunity being afforded to the opposite parties, no counter affidavit was filed. As such the facts stated in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct. 3. On 16th October, 1974 Sadhu Singh father of the petitioner was served with notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act. In this notice Sadhu Singh was alleged to be holding 24.12 acres of land and the area of his proposed surplus land was shown as 7.42 acres. Against this notice Sri Sadhu Singh filed objections on 21-10-1974 alleging that he did not have any surplus land. The prescribed authority through its order dated 25-11-1975 held that Sadhu Singh did not have any surplus land. In other words, it was held that whatever land was held by Sri Sadhu Singh was within his ceiling limit. Barely one month after, on 28-12-1975 to be specific, another notice was issued to Sri Sadhu Singh under Section 10 (2) of the Act. In this notice also the area of the proposed surplus land was indicated as 7.42 acres. Sri Sadhu Singh filed objections against this notice or. 24-2-1976 pleading inter alia that in view of the order dated 25-11-1975 passed by the prescribed authority, the second notice dated 28-12-1975 was incompetent; land of village Adilpur had already been sold for purchasing tube-well and fixing the same and, therefore, this land could not be included in the holding of the objector; land of villages Bishunpur, Adilpur and Sahana was un-irrigated and had wrongly been shown in the statement attached to the notice as irrigated and he had two major sons and was, therefore, entitled to retain 11.30 hectares of irrigated land. The Prescribed Authority framed six issues. The Prescribed Authority framed six issues. Under issues 1 and 2 it held that the objector and his witness Srikant had stated that land had been sold about four or five years prior to the date on which their statement was recorded. A perusal of khatauni extracts which had been filed in the previous proceedings indicated that sale deeds had been executed after 24th January, 1971 and, therefore, the land covered by the sale-deeds could not be excluded from the objectors holding. It was further observed that in view of the explanation to Section 5 (1) added in the year 1974 it had to be held "hat The objector had benefited him- self from the land and that the transferees were merely benami tenure-holders, actual tenure-holder being the objector himself. Under issue No. 3 the objectors plea that his un-irrigated land had been treated as irrigated land was rejected. Under issue No. 4 the entire land of villages Bishunpur, Adilpur and Sahana was treated as irrigated. Under issue No. 5 it was held that in view of the amendment in the Act, the previous proceedings taken against the objector did not bar the present proceedings. Under issue No. 6 it was held that the objectors surplus area had been determined taking into consideration the fact that his two sons were major. Finally it was held that the objectors total irrigated area was 31.48 acres and his ceiling area was 24.058 acres and, therefore 7.42 acres were surplus with the objector. 4. Against the above order of the prescribed authority objector Sadhu Singh preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Gonda who transferred the same for hearing and disposal to the Court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda. The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 6-1-1977 dismissed the objectors appeal; in respect of the bar of second proceedings the learned Additional District Judge held that the second notice could be issued, if the prescribed authority detected any mistake regarding the extent of the land comprised in the holding of the objector. In the case of the objector he further found that there was mistake as regards the extent of the holding of the objector. It was further observed that the entire land of the objector was not 24.12 acres as held earlier but was 31.48 acres as now held. In the case of the objector he further found that there was mistake as regards the extent of the holding of the objector. It was further observed that the entire land of the objector was not 24.12 acres as held earlier but was 31.48 acres as now held. On the question whether objectors un-irrigated land had been treated as irrigated the learned District Judge observed that the objector and his witness Srikant stated that the objector had tube well in village Meharban and the rest of the land was not irrigated, but the Lekhpal said on oath that the extent of the irrigated and un-irrigated land had been correctly shown in the statement prepared by him. It was further observed that the Lekhpals statement found support from khasra of 1380 Fasli also. Therefore the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the order of the prescribed authority on this question was correct. Regarding the claim in respect of the land allegedly sold by the objector it was observed by the learned District Judge that it was rather curious that the objector had not filed even the sale deeds through which the land had allegedly been transferred. It was also observed that admittedly the alleged sale deeds were executed after 24th January, 1971 and, therefore, the said sale deeds had to be ignored. 5. The above findings have been assailed by Sri Hargur Charan Srivastava. The learned counsel urged that on the question of the competence, of the subsequent proceedings the learned District Judge has given a reason which is different from the one given by the prescribed authority. The learned counsel pointed out, while the prescribed authority stated that the second proceedings was necessitated by, the amendment in the Act the learned District Judge observed that in the earlier proceedings the area of objectors entire land had been wrongly decided as 24.12 acres as against 31.4 acres now decided by the prescribed authority. The learned counsel urged that the first proceeding had been taken by the prescribed authority and the second proceeding had also been taken by the same authority, as such the learned District Judge could not adopt a different reason for justifying the proceedings taken by the prescribed authority. The learned counsel urged that the first proceeding had been taken by the prescribed authority and the second proceeding had also been taken by the same authority, as such the learned District Judge could not adopt a different reason for justifying the proceedings taken by the prescribed authority. The learned counsel also urged that under Section 13-A of the Act the prescribed authority was certainly competent to rectify mistakes which were, apparent on the face of the record but according to him, if the prescribed authority intended to take action under Section 13-A it should have indicated in the notice the particular error which was sought to be rectified. Instead of doing this the prescribed authority issued notice in the same form in which the earlier notice had been issued and in this subsequent notice no indication had been given of the reason for taking fresh proceedings. 6. Sri Sudhir Shankar who appeared in the case on behalf of the State urged that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge showed that there was error in the earlier proceedings regarding the extent of Sadhu Singhs holding and, therefore, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act were clearly attracted. The learned counsel urged that since the jurisdiction to rectify mistake vested in the prescribed authority, this Court should not interfere merely because in the notice itself it was not indicated that the fresh proceedings were being taken under Section 13-A of the Act. 7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 13-A the prescribed authority is certainly competent to rectify mistake which is apparent on the face of the record within two years from the date of the notification under Section 14 (1). The earlier proceedings having been decided on 25-11-1975 and the second notice having been issued on 28-12-1975, the second notice, was, as such, within period of two years prescribed under Section 13-A. The jurisdiction, however, to act under Section 13-A (1) arises only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record The order of the Prescribed Authority and the circumstances of the case indicate that the fresh notice was issued not on account of any error apparent on the face of the record but on account of the amendment of the Principal Act by U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975 which was published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette on 17-1-1975. The amendments made through this Act affected the manner of determining ceiling and surplus areas. Section 19 of the Act contained provision for reopening closed proceedings. It reads as follows .- "19. Transitory Provision. - Where an order determining the surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the Principal Act, before the commencement of this Act, the Prescribed Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, re-deter-mine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act." 8. In order to attract the applicability of the above section two conditions have to co-exist; firstly the order in the earlier proceedings should have been passed before the commencement of the amending Act: and secondly the fresh notice must be served within two years from the date of commencement of the amending Act. If either of the two conditions, is lacking there would be no jurisdiction to issue fresh notice. In order to determine the controversy it is necessary to find out the date of commencement of the amending Act. Section 1 (2) of the amending Act provides as follows: "1 (2) - This section and S. 9 shall tome into force at once, and the remaining sections shall be deemed to have come into force on June 8, 1973." In view of the above provision, for the purposes of S. 9, the Act comes into force at once, that is, on the date of its publication in the Official (Gazette which is 17-1-1975. In order to (attract the first condition mentioned above it is necessary that the order in earlier proceedings should have been passed before 17-1-1975. In the present case the order in the earlier proceedings was passed on 25-11-1975, that is, after the commencement of the amending Act. Therefore the first condition for the applicability of S. 19 of the amending Act is lacking in the present case. In view of the fact that the two conditions hereinbefore refer- red to have to co-exist and one of the conditions has been found to be lacking it is not necessary to consider the existence or non-existence of the second condition. In view of the fact that the two conditions hereinbefore refer- red to have to co-exist and one of the conditions has been found to be lacking it is not necessary to consider the existence or non-existence of the second condition. Since S. 19 of the Amending Act is not attracted in the present case the prescribed authority did not acquire any jurisdiction to take fresh proceedings under U. P. Act No. 2 of 1975. 9. On 10th Oct., 1975 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh promulgated U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 which was published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary the same day. Section 27 (3) of the Ordinance makes provision for taking fresh proceedings after the close of earlier proceedings. This section reads as follows:- "27 (3) - Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may at any time within a period of two years from the commencement of this Ordinance redetermine the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Ordinance, notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided against the original order of determination of surplus land." 10. In order to attract the applicability of S. 27(3) reproduced above there are two requirements namely, the order in the earlier proceedings should have been passed before the commencement of the Ordinance and the fresh notice should be issued within two years from the commencement of the Ordinance. Section 1 (2) of the Ordinance provides that it shall come into force on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint in this behalf. Under Notification No. 1(36) 75-Rev.-l-75 dated Oct. 10, 1975 published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary on 10th Oct., 1975 the date of commencement of the Ordinance was fixed as Oct. 10, 1975. Since the order in the earlier proceedings was passed on 25-11-1975, that is, after the enforcement of the Ordinance the first requirement for the applicability of S. 27 (3) is not fulfilled. As such even under Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 the Prescribed Authority did not acquire jurisdiction to reopen the closed proceedings. 11. 10, 1975. Since the order in the earlier proceedings was passed on 25-11-1975, that is, after the enforcement of the Ordinance the first requirement for the applicability of S. 27 (3) is not fulfilled. As such even under Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 the Prescribed Authority did not acquire jurisdiction to reopen the closed proceedings. 11. U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975 was replaced by U. P. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976, promulgated on 16-2- 1976 and published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary on 16-2-1976. Section 31 (1) of the Ordinance repealed U.P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975. Section 30 (3) of this Ordinance is a reproduction of S. 27 (3) of U. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1975. In view of the provision contained in S. 1 (2) of Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 it will be deemed to have come into force on 10th Oct., 1975, that is, on the same date on which Ordinance No. 3l of 1975 came into force. Since the requirements for taking fresh proceedings under Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 are the same as prescribed under Ordinance 31 of 1975, fresh proceedings could not be taken even under Ordinance No. 11 of 1976. Ordinance No. 11 of 1976 was replaced by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. Section 31 (3) of this Act provides as follows:- 31 (3). Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a tenure-holder has been made under the principal Act before the tenth day of October, 1975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined in the principal Act) may, at any time within a period of two years from the said date, redetermine 'the surplus land in accordance with the principal Act as amended by this Act whether or not any appeal was filed against such order and notwithstanding any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original order of determination on surplus land." 12. Under the above provision also the fresh proceedings could be taken if the order in the earlier proceedings had been passed before 10th Oct., 1975. The order in the earlier proceedings in the case on hand as indicated here-in above was passed on 25-11-1975 and as such no jurisdiction was acquired by the prescribed authority to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner. 13. The order in the earlier proceedings in the case on hand as indicated here-in above was passed on 25-11-1975 and as such no jurisdiction was acquired by the prescribed authority to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner. 13. In view of the above discussion the notice dated 28th Dec., 1975, issued by the prescribed authority against the petitioner which culminated in the passing of the orders by the prescribed authority and the learned District Judge which have been impugned in the present writ petition was without jurisdiction. In view of this finding it is not necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the learned District Judge. However since those orders were shown to be suffering from errors apparent on the face of the record, I proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the said orders on merits also. 14. Shri Hargur Charan urged that the prescribed authority has wrongly observed that in determining objectors surplus area allowance has already been made for his two sons who had been held to be major; Sri Hargur Charan points out that in view of the provisions contained in S. 5 (3) the objector was entitled to hold 7.30 hectares and was entitled to be given two hectares for each of the two major sons. Thus according to the learned counsel the objector was entitled to in all, 11.30 hectares which was equivalent to 27.92 irrigated acres. The learned counsel points out that the prescribed authority had determined the ceiling area of Sadhu Singh as 24.058 acres while according to the calculations hereinbefore mentioned he was entitled to 27.92 acres. The argument of the learned counsel appears to be correct and the learned counsel for the State was unable to justify the determination of ceiling area made by the prescribed authority in respect of Sadhu Singh. 15. The next argument of the learned counsel was that in holding that the land claimed by Sadhu Singh as un-irrigated was irrigated, the two authorities below had ignored the entries in khasra and khatauni extracts and the admission of Lekhpal in favour of Sadhu Singh in his deposition; Section 4-A of the Act prescribes the I manner of determining irrigated land. Section 3 (11) of the Act defines irrigated land as land determined as such in the manner laid down in S. 4-A of the Act. Section 3 (18) of the Act defines un-irrigated land as any land other than irrigated land, grove land and susar land. Thus all land which is not irrigated land has to be treated as un-irrigated while determining the ceiling and surplus areas under the Act. Section 4-A is as follows.- "4-A. Determination of irrigated land: - The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary, and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion: - firstly, (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years: by - (i) any canal included in Sch. No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62-W-1964, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation Work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition. of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under S. 10; or thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year; then the prescribed authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act." 16. Under the above provision in order to constitute irrigated land a land must fall under one of the three clauses firstly, secondly and thirdly. In order to determine whether first clause applies or the second certain facts have to be found. Under the above provision in order to constitute irrigated land a land must fall under one of the three clauses firstly, secondly and thirdly. In order to determine whether first clause applies or the second certain facts have to be found. Clause firstly would be attracted when irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli. This irrigation facility should be by any canal included in Sch. 1 of irrigation rates notified in the notification referred to under sub-cl. (i) of clause firstly or by any lift irrigation canal or any State tube-well or a private irrigation. Apart from the existence of this irrigation facility it is further necessary for the applicability of this clause that at least two crops should have been grown on such land in any of the years hereinbefore mentioned. In order to determine the applicability of clause firstly the prescribed authority will be required to determine firstly whether any irrigation facility of the nature hereinbefore mentioned existed in respect of the land in any of the Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli and secondly whether at least two crops had been grown on such land in any of the said years. Unless a finding is recorded in respect of these facts it will not be possible for the prescribed authority to hold that a particular land is irrigated as contemplated under clause firstly. Similarly, certain facts are required to be found for the applicability of clauses secondly and thirdly. Neither the order of the prescribed authority, nor the judgment of the learned District Judge indicate the facts on the basis of which the land has been treated as irrigated. The order and judgment also do not indicate that the land was treated as irrigated or. account of its falling under clause firstly, secondly or thirdly. Thus the finding on the question of irrigated nature of the land has not been given in accordance with the provisions of S. 4-A. The finding on the question is, therefore, legally erroneous. 17. Sri Hargur Charan further urged that the sale-deed could not be ignored merely on account of the fact that it was executed after 24th Jan., 1971 and that it could be ignored only if the transaction of sale was not a bona fide one. 17. Sri Hargur Charan further urged that the sale-deed could not be ignored merely on account of the fact that it was executed after 24th Jan., 1971 and that it could be ignored only if the transaction of sale was not a bona fide one. According to the learned counsel the case of the objector was that he had sold the land in order to provide irrigation facilities in respect of his other land. The learned counsel urged that the case of the petitioner was that he had purchased tube-well and installed the same with the money received from the purchasers. Sri Sudhir Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the State urged that the learned District Judge had rejected the sale-deeds on two grounds firstly that the factum of sale had not been substantiated by the objector inasmuch as he did not file either the original sale-deed or a copy thereof and secondly that the sale-deed had admittedly been executed subsequent to 24th Jan. 1971 and was. therefore, liable to be ignored in view of the provision made in proviso (b) to S. 5 of the Act read with Expln. II to the said sub-section. The learned counsel pointed out that under this provision the burden to prove that the transfer was in good faith and for adequate consideration and not a ben ami transaction for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family lay upon the tenure-holder. The argument of the learned counsel is correct. The learned District Judge has not referred to the evidence on record and he has not recorded any finding to the effect that the said evidence does not establish that the transfer was in good faith and for adequate consideration and that it was rot a benami transaction for the immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of his family. Sri Sudhir Shanker is right in saying that in order to establish the factum of sale, the objector should have placed on record either original sale-deed or a copy thereof and unless this was done the factum of sale could not be considered to be established. In this case it appears that mutation on the basis of the sale-deed had been effected in the revenue records. The prescribed authority has referred to the khatauni extract which had been filed in the earlier proceedings. In this case it appears that mutation on the basis of the sale-deed had been effected in the revenue records. The prescribed authority has referred to the khatauni extract which had been filed in the earlier proceedings. The order of the prescribed authority indicates that it did not doubt the factum of the sale; it did not rely upon the sale because it was effected after 24-1-1971. In view of the fact that the factum of sale was not disputed the failure to file the sale-deed was of no consequence. The prescribed authority should have therefore recorded finding as regards existence of the ingredients of proviso (6) to S. 5 (6) of the Act. This not having been done by either of the two authorities below, the finding on the question of exclusion of the land covered by the sale-deed is also vitiated. 18. In view of the above the writ petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The notice dated 28-12-1975, the order of the prescribed authority dated 3rd June, 1976 (Annexure-2)) and the judgment dated 6-1-1977 of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda (Annexure-3) are hereby quashed. The costs of this petition shall be easy.