ORDER A. Banerji, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the tenure-holder against the appellate decision of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 20th Feb., 1975 dismissing the appeal and upholding the decision of the Prescribed Authority that there was a surplus of 2.38 hectares of land of the tenure-holder. 2. In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Prescribed Authority's order dated 31st Oct., 1974 does not show any consideration regarding the tenure-holder's plot No. 192. There is no discussion nor any finding that the irrigation facility was available for the entire plot in respect of Fasli years 1378 to 1380 or two crops were grown in such land in any of the aforesaid years. The Appellate Authority also erred in holding that irrigation facility was available for the entire plot and that two crops were grown in such land in relevant years although he observed that only 8 bigha 9 biswa was under cultivation in Rabi 1378 Fasli and 13 bigha in Rabi 1380 Fasli. Since the area of the plot was 25 bigha 4 biswa in all the raising of the crop was at most confined to a part of the plot and not to the whole. Consequently, the entire plot could not be deemed to be irrigated under S. 4A of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Learned counsel also relied upon a statement of the Lekhpal who appeared as a witness on behalf of the State saying that plot No. 192 was not entire Do Fasli (capable of raising two crops) in the relevant years. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, however, contended that the Prescribed Authority had dealt with the plots in village Shahpur and has referred to the Khasra entries and ultimately held that there was irrigation facility from canal. From this he contended that plot No. 192 also had irrigation facility in the relevant fasli years. He also referred to the finding of the Appellate Authority which shows that a part of the land had raised two crops in two of the fasli years. This, he contended, brought the case clearly within the purview of the first of the three clauses in Section 4A of the Act. He also referred to the finding of the Appellate Authority which shows that a part of the land had raised two crops in two of the fasli years. This, he contended, brought the case clearly within the purview of the first of the three clauses in Section 4A of the Act. Alternatively, learned counsel argued that the third clause was also applicable because the land was situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tubewell or a private irrigation work and the land was capable of growing atleast two crops in a Fasli year and as such the land would be deemed to be irrigated land. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record I have no hesitation in saying that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority both betray a lack of proper approach and consideration of the provisions of the Act. It is imperative for an authority exercising power under the Act to consider whether a tenure-holder has land in excess of the ceiling limit, to apply the provisions of law as applicable to the tenure-holder carefully and consider the evidence on record meticulously. In a statute like that of the present Act a tenure-holder is liable to lose agricultural land in case it is found to be beyond his ceiling limit. The ceiling limit under the Act is measured under the terms of irrigated land. It, therefore, becomes necessary for the authorities under the Act to consider and decide whether the petitioner's land is an irrigated land within the meaning of S. 4A of the Act. The 'provisions of the said Act are to be applied strictly. In a legislation which seeks to take away land it is imperative that the provisions of the law are applied correctly taking care of all the requirements under the law. 5. S. 4A lays down the manner of determination of irrigated land. The Prescribed Authority is to examine the relevant khasras of the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as may be considered necessary besides making local inspection where it considers necessary and thereafter consider whether any of the three clauses of this Section are applicable. The Prescribed Authority is to examine the relevant khasras of the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as may be considered necessary besides making local inspection where it considers necessary and thereafter consider whether any of the three clauses of this Section are applicable. These three clauses are : - Firstly - (a) Irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any of the aforesaid years; by a notified canal or by any lift irrigation canal or by any State tubewell or a private irrigation work; and that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years. Secondly - That irrigation facility became available to any land of a State irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 1972 and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of the issue of the notice under section 10; or Thirdly - (a) That any land which is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State Tubewell or a private irrigation work; and (b) That the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. 6. It is only when the Prescribed Authority is of the opinion that the land comes in any of the three clauses mentioned above that the land will be deemed to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act. In the present case it appears that the State based its case on the Clause 'Firstly'. What was required to be seen was whether there was irrigation facility available for the land i.e. plot No. 192 in respect of any crop in the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli by any notified canal or any lift irrigation canal or any State tubewell or private irrigation work. It is not clear from any of the two judgments about the nature of the irrigation facility available but the statement of the Lekhpal shows that irrigation facility was available from a canal. There is nothing in the orders of the courts below whether such a canal was a notified canal or a lift irrigation canal. It is not clear from any of the two judgments about the nature of the irrigation facility available but the statement of the Lekhpal shows that irrigation facility was available from a canal. There is nothing in the orders of the courts below whether such a canal was a notified canal or a lift irrigation canal. It was essential for the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority to give a clear finding whether the irrigation facility was available by a notified canal or any lift irrigation canal. Mere statement that the irrigation facility was available by a canal would not be sufficient until it was found that it was by one of those canals which have been included in Schedule I of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W-XXI1I-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time. It is essential before a land is held to be irrigated that there must be a clear finding that there exists irrigation facility for the land as envisaged in one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of clause 'Firstly' of Section 4A of the Act. There is no such finding. 7. A contention was also raised that the area of the plot was 25 Bigha 4 Biswa, but a small area of the plot i.e. 8 Bigha 9 Biswa was cultivated in Rabi season 1378 Fasli and 13 Bigha was cultivated in Rabi 1380 Fasli. An argument was built upon that the entire plot was not cultivated in any of the three Fasli Years. It was further urged that the entire land was not cultivated in any of the Fasli years and as such the land could not be deemed to be double cropped or capable of growing two crops. This contention, in my opinion, has no merits. In the case of Kallu v. State of U. P. (1979 All W C 579) : (1979 All L J 1113), a Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the expression 'such land' in sub-cl. (b) of cl. 'Firstly' meant land referred to in sub-cl. (a) of Cl. Firstly. It was observed (para 9) : - "The word used in sub-cl. (b) is 'in' and not 'over' and consequently if two crops were grown in any portion of the area of a plot to which irrigation facility was available under sub-cl. (b) of cl. 'Firstly' meant land referred to in sub-cl. (a) of Cl. Firstly. It was observed (para 9) : - "The word used in sub-cl. (b) is 'in' and not 'over' and consequently if two crops were grown in any portion of the area of a plot to which irrigation facility was available under sub-cl. (a) of clause 'Firstly', the entire area to which irrigation facility was available shall be treated as land in which two crops were grown. The requirement of sub-cl. (b) of cl. 'Firstly' of S. 4A is not that every inch of the land to which irrigation facilities were available in the material areas should have grown double crops." In this view of the matter, if irrigation facility was available to the entire land i.e. 25 Bigha 4 Biswa even if two crops were not raised in any of the relevant Fasli year, the land would not go out of the purview of irrigated land. In other words, the criteria pertain to the existence of irrigation facility. It is the volition of the tenure-holder either to cultivate the whole of the plot or a part of the plot. If his volition were to prevail and he raised crops only in a part of that area, it would not mean that only that part of the land in which he had raised the crops would be only the irrigated land within the meaning of S. 4A of the Act. 8. Learned Standing Counsel had also argued that the Cl. 'Firstly' was also attracted, for the land in the present case was shown to be lying within the effective command area of a canal. A perusal of the Cl. 'Thirdly' and sub-cl. (a) shows that it had to lie within the effective command area of lift irrigation canal or a State tube well or a private irrigation work. There is no such mention in this case. It is, therefore, necessary for the State to have shown that plot No. 192 lay within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tubewell or a private irrigation work. The material on record does not throw any light on this point. Secondly, sub-cl. (b) of Cl. 'Thirdly' requires that the class and composition of the soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in any of the agricultural year. The material on record does not throw any light on this point. Secondly, sub-cl. (b) of Cl. 'Thirdly' requires that the class and composition of the soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in any of the agricultural year. The evidence on the record undoubtedly shows that 13 bighas of land of plot No. 192 was capable of raising two crops in an agricultural year, for in Rabi 1380 Fasli this much area is shown to be growing a crop, but this would not mean that the composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing two crops. There is neither any material nor any discussion in the judgment of the Appellate Authority in this regard. It is not feasible to accept the argument of the learned counsel that Clause 'Thirdly' would be attracted. 9. Interpretation of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has to be done keeping an eye on the object of this Act. It must be noticed that this Act has been enacted for the public good. The provisions of the Act cannot be construed in a manner so as to defeat the very object of the Act. While construing the provisions of the Act care also be taken to see that there is a strict compliance with the requirements of law. It has been noticed that this Act is in the nature of an expropriator legislation. Therefore, before a tenure-holder is deprived of his land, it must be clearly found that he has surplus land and in arriving at that finding it is the duty of the authorities under the Act to see that the provisions of the Act are duly and properly construed. 10. In the present case, it was incumbent on the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority to give a clear finding as to the nature of the irrigation facility available. Mere indication that it was irrigated by a canal according to the version of the Lekhpal would not be sufficient. It had to be indicated from the relevant Khasra of the three Fasli Years 1378, 1379 & 1380 or such other record that the irrigation facility was of such type as was contained in sub-clause (a) of clause 'Firstly' of S. 4A of the Act. This lacuna in the finding has vitiated the decision of the appellate authority. It had to be indicated from the relevant Khasra of the three Fasli Years 1378, 1379 & 1380 or such other record that the irrigation facility was of such type as was contained in sub-clause (a) of clause 'Firstly' of S. 4A of the Act. This lacuna in the finding has vitiated the decision of the appellate authority. There is a manifest error of law and therefore the order of the appellate authority dated 20th February, 1975 has to be set aside and the case sent back to the appellate authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. I order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.