ORDER M.P. Mehrotra. J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner is the tenure-holder and the notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued to him. He filed objections and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-5- 1976, a true copy of which is Annexure 3 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate court on 12-4-1977 by a judgment, whose true copy is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner came up to this court and the petition filed by him was allowed in part by a Learned Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 15-12-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 5 to the petition. The case was remanded to the appellate court for redeciding the controversy as to whether the plots Nos. 2498 to 2500 should be treated as irrigated or unirrigated. The appellants court, thereafter, held that the said plots were irrigated by its judgment dated 22-5-1980, a true copy of which is Annexure 6 to the petition. 3. Now the petitioner has again come to this Court in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. K. Jain, Learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The Learned counsel contended that the decision of the appellate court is not in accordance with the remand order which was passed by this Court. Further, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench pronouncement in Jaswant Singh v. State, (1978 All W C 577) : (1979 All L J 25) and a single Judge pronouncement in J. N. Bansal v. State of U.P. (1978 All W C 4921 (para 13) : 1978 All L J 728, para 10). It should be seen that in the earlier order (Annexure 4) which was passed by the appellate court the discussion was on the basis of the third category of S. 4A. The relevant observation was : The Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the aforesaid plots were in the effective command area of the canal, but since the said plots were at higher level, water could not reach there." A reference was further made to C. H. Form 5. When the matter came up to this court. The relevant observation was : The Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the aforesaid plots were in the effective command area of the canal, but since the said plots were at higher level, water could not reach there." A reference was further made to C. H. Form 5. When the matter came up to this court. it was observed that the determination had to be made with reference to three categories of S. 4A and not with reference to C. H. Form 5. Thereafter, it was observed that the appellate court seemed to have decided the controversy under the 3rd category and in the said reference it was laid down that before the 3rd category could be applicable, its requirements had to be satisfied. Here it may be observed that at the earlier stage, the appellate court had made an observation to this effect "No Khasra of the relevant year has been filed to show that there existed no source of irrigation and that only single crop was raised." In the background of the said observation, this Court decided the writ petition. When the matter travelled back to the appellate court as a result of the judgment passed in the earlier writ petition, the appellate court observed : "Learned Advocate for the appellant has today produced the relevant extracts of Khasras for the years 1378F to 1380F. A perusal of these documents on record would bear out that land comprising all the said three plots was irrigated in all the three years and two crops were raised. The entire land was further shown to have been irrigated from a canal in all those three years." 5. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate court acted contrary to the remand order passed by this court. No Khasras have been annexed to the writ petition to show that the observation made by the appellate court was wrong. So far as the case law, on which reliance has been placed, is concerned, it should be seen that in the Division Bench pronouncement in Jaswant Singh's case (1979 All L J 25) (supra) it was only laid down that it was mandatory for the authorities to look into records mentioned in S. 4A of the Act. So far as the case law, on which reliance has been placed, is concerned, it should be seen that in the Division Bench pronouncement in Jaswant Singh's case (1979 All L J 25) (supra) it was only laid down that it was mandatory for the authorities to look into records mentioned in S. 4A of the Act. However, it is not necessary that in every order passed by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate court, there should be a recital that the map has been perused. So far as the learned single Judge's pronouncement reported in J.N. Bansal's case, (1978 All L J 728) (supra) is concerned, the observation was made with reference to the III category of S. 4A. In the instant case, the first category of S. 4A of the Act is applicable. In my view. as I have held that the first category was found to be applicable it the instant case, therefore, there was no question of discussing the nature and composition of the soil which has to be done under the IIIrd category. 6. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.