ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This Petition by the State 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 opposite party No. 2 Rang Bahadur was issued the notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority, a true copy of whose order is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the saute was initially dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 27-4-1977. However, the tenure-holder came up in writ petition in this Court and the same was allowed and the appeal was sent back to the appellate court for a fresh decision. The appeal, after remand, was heard by the appellate court and the same was allowed by the said Court by its judgment dated 7-5-1980, it true copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the petition. The certified copy of the appellate court judgment is also on the record. 3. Now the State has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, and in opposition, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The controversy is about certain land which was treated as grove by the appellate court. The learned Standing Counsel contends that the plots is question should not have been treated as grove but should have been treated as irrigated land. The appellate court dealt with the controversy in two parts. Certain plots were held to he grove on the ground that the trees planted thereon, when fully grown, would preclude the land of the said plots or any considerable portion thereof to he used primarily for any other purpose. The appellate court observed : "Thus the four plots cannot he taken to be irrigated land. Rather these plots come within the definition of grove land. The area' recorded in the name of Rang Bahadur of these plots is 7 bighas 9 biswas and if for the purposes of ceiling it is converted into irrigated area, the appellant tenure-holder will get a benefit of an area of 4 Bighas 9 hiswas 8 Biswansis which shall be excluded from his holding." 5. In my view. the learned Standing Counsel is not right in attacking the said finding of the appellate court. In my view. the learned Standing Counsel is not right in attacking the said finding of the appellate court. The said finding is substantially a finding of fact and the learned counsel for the opposite Party No. 2 has placed reliance on my decision reported in Ram Phal Singh v. 4th Addl. District Judge, 1979 A.L.J. 195) for contending that such a finding of fact cannot he questioned in a writ petition. In my view, this contention is correct. 6. The appellate court dealt with certain other plots mentioned in para 11 of the appellate court's judgment and held that an old grove had existed on the land of the said plots, but the trees were cut by the tenure holder after 24-1-1971 and fresh trees were planted thereon after obtaining the permission of the Gram Samaj concerned. The appellate court observed : "Thus these trees no doubt have been planted after 24-1-1971 but if such a technical interpretation is given, it will create hardship to the tenure-holder." In my view, the appellate court was wrong in the said interpretation. The definition of grove in S. 3 (8) is clear and it is not permissible to a court to go in for the so called equitable interpretation. This specific controversy was examined and decided by my decision in Smt. Jagwati Devi v. State of U.P., 1979 A.L.J. 311. In the said decision I observed tat p. 312) : "If the old grove ceases to be a grove in view of the fact that old trees are felled and the land is concerted into cultivory land after 24th Jan., 1971 then, in my opinion, if new trees are planted in the place of the old trees and even if such new trees when fully grown will preclude the land or considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for an other purpose, still, in view of the fact that the new trees have been planted after 24th Jan. 1971 the land cannot he treated as grove land in view of the aforesaid definition in the Ceiling Act. The legislative injunction is that before a land can be treated as a grove land under the Ceiling law, the trees thereon must have been planted before Jan. 24, 1971. 1971 the land cannot he treated as grove land in view of the aforesaid definition in the Ceiling Act. The legislative injunction is that before a land can be treated as a grove land under the Ceiling law, the trees thereon must have been planted before Jan. 24, 1971. The fact that there was an old grove on the said date and thereafter the grove was converted into cultivatory land on which fresh trees in the place of felled trees were planted will not entitle the tenure-holder to claim that the plot should be treated as grove land under the said definition." The learned counsel contended that there was a difference of opinion between the learned Judges of this Court inasmuch as N.D. Ojha, J. in Sri Gajraj Pal Upadhya v. State 1978 A.L.J. 124) took a view contrary to the aforesaid view of mine. In my view. this contention is not correct. The said learned Judge laid down that the controversy as to whether certain land constituted a grove or not, would ordinarily be decided in view of the position on the relevant date. i.e. 8-06-1973. However, S. 29 of the Act changed the position as a redetermination will have to be made if the ingredients of S. 29 of the Act are present in a case. That controversy has nothing to do with the controversy at hand, which is as to whether if there was an old drove before 24-1-1971 and the trees thereof are cut after 24-1-1971 and re-plantation takes place then can such land be treated as grove in the ceiling law. 7. Accordingly, I partly allow this petition and quash the appellate judgment to the extent that in the same 9 plots mentioned in para 11 thereof measuring 8 Bighas 5 Biswas II Biswansis have been treated as grove. The said plots shall not be treated as grove. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is right in contending that the further controversy will still remain as to whether the said plots should be treated as irrigated or unirrigated, and the case is sent hack to the appellate court for deciding the said controversy as to whether the said 9 plots measuring 8 Bighas 5 Biswas 11 Biswansis should he treated as irrigated or unirrigated land. The surplus land shall he redetermined after deciding the said controversy in the case. The surplus land shall he redetermined after deciding the said controversy in the case. ln the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.