ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The facts, in brief are these :- The petitioner was issued a notice under S. 10(2) read with S. 29 of the Act. He filed his objections and a true copy of the objections is annexure 1 to the petition. The objections were heard and decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 28-4-83, a true copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 8-8-83, a true copy of which is annexure 8 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is on record. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri B. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the authorities below in respect of certain land being not grove and certain land being not irrigated, are defective in law. So far as the plots claimed to be grove are concerned, they were as follows :- Plot Nos. 8, 10, 40 and 47. So far as plot No. 8 was concerned, the Prescribed Authority accepted the same to be a grove. It was throughout recorded in the Khasra in the relevant years as `grove'. However, so far as other three plots were concerned, the claim of the tenure-holder was rejected. It has been found that the Khasra entries did not show any of these disputed plots to be recorded as grove. These plots were shown in the Khasra to have grown two crops in a substantial portion of the land. Sometime even the entire plot has been shown to have grown crops either in Rabi or in Kharif. In a situation of this kind, in my opinion, this is a finding of fact in which no interference can be made within my narrow jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel contended that it was eminently a situation where the spot inspection should have been done. In a situation of this kind, in my opinion, this is a finding of fact in which no interference can be made within my narrow jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel contended that it was eminently a situation where the spot inspection should have been done. I wish to observe that it is within the discretion of the Authority, Tribunal or court to decide whether in a particular situation spot the entries stand year after year, they have clearly disclosed that these plots had grown two crops in a major portion and as I read the definition of `grove land' in the Act, I cannot say that it was not open to the authorities below to hold that the said land which had grown two crops over the entire or at least over its major portion could not be treated as land other than the grove land. The definition of the grove land is as under : - "`Grove land' means any specific piece of land in a holding having trees (not including guava, papaya, banana or vine plants) planted thereon before Jan. 24, 1971, in such numbers that they preclude, or when fully grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove." 4. Learned counsel then contended that the plots were wrongly treated as irrigated and that they should have been treated as un-irrigated. The main contention of the learned counsel is that S. 29 under which the proceedings were started lays down that un-irrigated land should have become irrigated land as a result of irrigation from State Irrigation Work. He also drew my attention to the definition of `State Irrigation Work' in S. 3(15) of the Act which is as follows :- "`State Irrigation Work' means a canal as defined in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, or a State Tube-well as defined in the United Provinces State Tube-wells Act, 1936 or life-irrigation works constructed, maintained or controlled by the State Government or operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from any perennial water source." 5. His point is that even though the tube- well has been shown in respect of various plots in the khasra from year to year, there is nothing to indicate that it was a Government tube-well and not a private tube-well. Learned counsel in this connection also drew my attention to the Land Records Manual's Para A-90, Inter alia, in the said paragraph it has been directed that if a tube- well or masonry well is Government owned well, the letter "Ga" shall be written outside the circle but if it is a private well, the letter inspection should or should not be made. As "Pa" shall be written there. 6. In my view, if there has been any non- compliance in recording whether a tube well is privately owned or owned by the Government, then the matter would be decided on the basis of evidence provided the controversy is raised in the proper manner and at the proper time. 7. Learned counsel also drew my attention to the statements made by the witnesses in the witness-box. In my view, since neither in the objections nor in the witness-box the petitioner raised this controversy and further when it was not raised at the hearing before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate court, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this controversy in the instant petition for the first time. The petitioner never made the point that the tube-well in question was not State owned and that it was a private tube- well and, therefore, S. 29 was inapplicable to the instant case. The said contention should have been raised particularly when the petitioner himself filed the certified copies of the extracts of khasras wherein the plots in dispute were, inter alia, shown to have been irrigated by a tube-well. He should have taken a specific objection that the tube-well in question was a private one and not State owned. It should be seen that the Division Bench in Shiv Ram Singh v. State, 1979 All WC 257 : 1979 All LJ 565 had laid down that there is a presumption about the correctness of the particulars given in C. L. H. Form 3 and it is for the tenure-holder to establish that the particulars recorded therein are incorrect. It should be seen that the Division Bench in Shiv Ram Singh v. State, 1979 All WC 257 : 1979 All LJ 565 had laid down that there is a presumption about the correctness of the particulars given in C. L. H. Form 3 and it is for the tenure-holder to establish that the particulars recorded therein are incorrect. In this view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this contention for the first time in this writ petition when it was never canvassed before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate court. 8. I should like to emphasise that I am not functioning as an appellate court in the instant jurisdiction and the limits within which I am functioning will be appreciated in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhabhut Mal v. Laxmi Rai, AIR 1975 SC 1297 . 9. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.