JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. On 24111978 a direction was issued by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ 2539/77 to appellate authority to decide the appeal under Section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and find if plot Nos. 71 and 170 and 121 were unirrigated within Section 4A of the Act, after affording opportunity to tenureholder to file certified copies of relevant khasra extract. From Khasras extract filed after remand, appellate authority found that on major portion of land sugar cane crop was grown in either of the years and in some year, crops were also grown over plot No. 71. He further found that as all the land was showed to have been irrigated none of the plots could be treated to be unirrigated. For source of irrigation he placed reliance on entry in CLH Form V which according to him bore out that entire area of plot Nos. 121 and 170 was irrigated and there existed source of irrigation in all the three relevant years. He further presumed that as sugarcane and paddy crops were grown there existed an assured source of irrigation. In order to treat land as irrigated, Section 4A lays down two requirements on that two crops should have been grown in respective years mentioned in subclauses (1) and (2) and in third the class and composition of soil should be such that it is capable of growing the crops in an agricultural year and second that there should be source of irrigation in the manner described in various clauses. In absence of any, the requirement of the section would not be complete and the land cannot be treated as irrigated. The finding that two crops were grown may be assumed to be correct as it is based either on entries is Khasra or on legal fiction contained in Explanation III to Section 4A. But that was not sufficient to render the land irrigated. The appellate authority misunderstood the law completely. It was not a matter of assumption. The growing of sugarcane crop gives rise to presumption of two crops only. It could not further be presumed from this that there must have been assured source of irrigation. There was no warrant for this presumption. A tenure holder may irrigate his land by a private well or by any other source. It was not a matter of assumption. The growing of sugarcane crop gives rise to presumption of two crops only. It could not further be presumed from this that there must have been assured source of irrigation. There was no warrant for this presumption. A tenure holder may irrigate his land by a private well or by any other source. But that would not render the land irrigated under Section 4A. A private source of irrigation must be as defined in Section 3 (4). The appellate authority further committed error in relying on CLH Form 5. This form relates to 'misalband' register. It appears he intended to refer to CLH Form 3 but by mistake he has written CLH Form V. But that form by itself was not sufficient for this finding. It was necessary for him to find if irrigation mentioned in CLH Form was from any of the source as provided in law. Before parting with this case it may be observed that the Additional District Judge while deciding the appeal observed as under: "It will not be out of place to mention that the tenureholderappellant did not raise a plea in his objections before the Prescribed Authority that the said three plots Nos. 71, 170 and 121 were unirrigated. It was for this reason that the matter was not taken up on merit by the prescribed authority. It is surprising that the tenure holder was permitted to raise an altogether new plea for the first time in appeal." The surprise expressed by him was unwarranted. He was deciding the appeal in pursuance of direction issued by this Court. While doing so he committed impropriety in making these observations as the order passed by his predecessor was substituted by the order of this Court and his observation amounted to casting indirect aspersion on this Court. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by appellate authority and prescribed authority are quashed. The prescribed authority is directed to redetermine whether these three plots had any source of irrigation as contemplated in Section 4A of the Act. The other findings have become final and shall not be reopened. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.