JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - This petition has been filed by the tenure holder under Article 226 of the Constitution. The brief facts are that the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He contested that notice. Two of the objections taken by him were that as a result of consolidation proceedings there had been a reduction in the area of his holding to the extent of about 2.62 acres. Another objection taken was that there was no assured source of irrigation and two crops cannot be grown on his land and that his land has been wrongly treated as irrigated, and single crop land. The Prescribed Authority accepted both these contentions and came to the conclusion that there was no surplus land with the petitioner and discharged the notice. Against this order the State filed an appeal. The appellate Court has taken a contrary view on both these questions. Relying on the decision of this Court in Kshetrapal Singh v. State of U.P., 1976 A.L.J. 522 it held that the reduction made in the area of the tenure holder's holding as a result of consolidation proceedings after 8-6-1973 could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the ceiling area applicable to him. Further, in regard to plot no. 2 of village Sihari one-half portion of which has been treated by the Prescribed Authority as unirrigated and the remaining one-half as single crop land, the appellate Court held that the whole of it was liable to be treated as single crop land because irrigation facility was available for a portion of it. On these findings the State's appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for recalculating the ceiling and surplus area. This decision forms the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. After hearing counsel for the parties I find that on both the points enumerated above the view taken by the appellate Court is erroneous in law. A bench of this Court has, in Satyapali Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 A.W.C. 217, taken the view that reduction in area brought above by consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenure holder after June 8, 1973, can be taken into account while determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date. A bench of this Court has, in Satyapali Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 A.W.C. 217, taken the view that reduction in area brought above by consolidation proceedings in the holding of a tenure holder after June 8, 1973, can be taken into account while determining the ceiling area applicable to him on the said date. It would, thus, be seen that the view taken by the Prescribed Authority was absolutely correct. It has, however, been contended by the learned Standing Counsel that it is only when reduction in the holding has taken place by operation of law that it can be taken into account while determining the ceiling area and hence this point maybe left open for further inquiry. I am not inclined to accept this contention because in the counter affidavit it has not been averred that reduction in the area had taken place otherwise than by operation of the provisions of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Act. 3. Now coming to the second point, Section 4 of the Act provides for determination of area for purposes of Ceiling and exemptions under Section 6 or any exemption under Section 6, Clause (i) of this section says that subject, to the provisions of clause (ii), one and one half hectares of unirrigated land or two and a half hectares of grove land or two and a half hectares of Usar land shall count as one hectare of irrigated land. Clause (ii) says that one and one half hectares of single crop land shall count as one hectare of irrigated land and the Explanation to this clause says that the expression 'single crop land' means any unirrigated land capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State Irrigation Work or private irrigation work. It would be seen that 'single cropland' refers to unirrigated land. It should be capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year and that maybe in consequence of assured irrigation from any state Irrigation work or private irrigation work. In other words the irrigation facilities should be available for such land. Now land cannot be equated with a plot. As laid down in Kallu v. State of U.P. 1979 A.W.C. 579. In other words the irrigation facilities should be available for such land. Now land cannot be equated with a plot. As laid down in Kallu v. State of U.P. 1979 A.W.C. 579. This being so, the appellate court was wrong in holding that since irrigation facility was available for a portion of the plot, the whole of the plot was liable to be treated as single Crop land. The view taken by the Prescribed Authority was perfectly correct in law, 4. The petitioner had also taken an objection that he had transferred part of his holding. The Prescribed Authority had not given any finding on it because after the view which it took on the aforesaid two points, it found that there was no surplus land left with the petitioner. Those findings have been confirmed by this Court also and therefore it is not necessary to go into the question of the alleged transfer. 5. The petition, hence, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.