JUDGMENT : 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 u/s 10(2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 26-4-1976, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was partly allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 17-11-1977 a true copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the petition. A certified copy of the judgment is also on the record. Now the Petitioner has come in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Prakash Chandra learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 3. Two contentions have been pressed before me by Sri Prakash Chandra. Firstly, he contended that some land which was found to be Abadi should not have been included in the holding of the Petitioner. In this connection the learned Counsel referred to the definition of land in Section 3(14) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. This definition of land is applicable for the ceiling law in view of Section 3(21) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It was contended that the land which has ceased to be used for agricultural purposes, no more remains as land in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the same is not liable to be included in the holding of the tenure older. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Justice R.M. Sahai, reported in Jhandoo Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1977) AWC 318. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Justice R.C. Srivastava in Httendra Singh v. III Additional District Judge (Writ petition No. 1154 of 1978 D/- 31-8-1979). In my view the said cases are distinguishable and this contention lacks merits. State of U.P. and Others, (1977) AWC 318. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Justice R.C. Srivastava in Httendra Singh v. III Additional District Judge (Writ petition No. 1154 of 1978 D/- 31-8-1979). In my view the said cases are distinguishable and this contention lacks merits. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate court have correctly stated that looking to the nature of the constructions, which were found to exist on the plots in question which were included in the holding of the Petitioner, it was not possible to give the benefit of any clause u/s 6 of the Act which enumerates different categories of land which are liable to be exempted from the holding of a tenure holder. In this connection a reference may be made to Tribeni Engineering Works v. State 1978 AWC 33. The approach there which has been held to be applicable to a consideration of the ingredients of Sub-section 6(1)(a) should also be held to be applicable to Section 6(1)(b). in the instant case it is not disputed that the plots on which the constructions existed, are recorded in the name of he Petitioner as the tenure holder thereof. If a person is the Bhumidhar or the Sirdar of some plots, then the mere fact that certain constructions exist on such plot will not entitle the exemption of the land beneath such constructions unless it be found that Section 6(1) (b) is applicable and the constructions are in the nature of a residential house. Accordingly, this contention is rejected. 4. The learned Counsel next contended that plots Nos. 1290 and 1301 have been wrongly held to be irrigated by the authorities below on the basis of the oral evidence, which should not have been considered in view of the law laid down in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1978) AWC 577. It seems to me that the authorities below were handicapped when they pronounced their verdict because the aforesaid Division Bench had not till then rendered its judgment. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the judgment of the appellate court dated 17-11-1977, annexure 1 and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26-4-1976 annexure 2 are hereby quashed in so far as the aforesaid two plots have been treated as irrigated. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the judgment of the appellate court dated 17-11-1977, annexure 1 and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26-4-1976 annexure 2 are hereby quashed in so far as the aforesaid two plots have been treated as irrigated. The case is remanded to the appellate court with a direction that each of the said two plots shall be dealt with separately and the appellate court shall state how both the requirements mentioned in any of the three categories of Section 4A of the Act, stand satisfied or do not stand satisfied. The appellate court shall act in accordance with the law laid down by the two Division Benches of this Court in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1978) AWC 577 and Kallu Vs. State of U.P., (1979) AWC 579. 6. The surplus land and the ceiling area shall be redetermined thereafter. It is made clear that no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised before the appellate court. In the circumstances, there will been order as to costs.