ORDER R.C. Srivastava, J. - A notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on the petitioner, who filed an objection. One of the pleas raised in the objection was that the land was unirrigated. The objection of the petitioner was rejected. He then filed an appeal which was partly allowed. Aggrieved, he has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land was wrongly treated to be irrigated. 3. The appellate authority held the land to be irrigated. He observed that as tube-well was shown in the Khasra extracts hence the land would be deemed to be within the effective command area of irrigation. This finding of the appellate authority is not based on correct appreciation of the provisions of law. There is no finding that the class and composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. The appellate authority treated the land in the third category of Section 4-A of the Act and held it to be irrigated. In order to treat the land in the third category, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, that the land should be situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work. The appellate authority considered this condition to be satisfied on the ground that the land was within the definition of private irrigation work. To bring a land within the effective command area unless it was covered by Explanation I of Section 4-A of the Act, the same could not be held to be irrigated. There is no finding that the farthest field thereof in any direction was irrigated in any of the years 1378F, 1379F. and 1380F. There is no finding regarding the second condition also that the class and composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. In the absence of any determination regarding nature of the land in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, the land could not be treated to be irrigated. In the absence of any determination regarding nature of the land in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, the land could not be treated to be irrigated. As the appellate authority has failed to record any finding in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, it is necessary that the case should be sent back to the appellate authority for determination afresh. 4. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority so far as it relates to the land declared irrigated, is hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on that question afresh in accordance with law. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.