JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J.- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from proceedings under the U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. On November, 30, 1974, the Prescribed Authority determined 9.94 acres as surplus land with the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this determination was dismissed. The writ petition against that order was dismissed also on October 3, 1978. The determination was however, re-opened on July 30, 1975, after giving notice for the purpose to the petitioner. This time the surplus land, determined in relation to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority, was 14.38 acres. In appeal against that order the controversy raised was as to the area pertaining to plots nos. 244 and 268, which could be treated as irrigated for the purposes of determination of the surplus as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. The appellate authority has taken the view that the surplus land with the petitioner is 6.95 acres. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the determination made by the appellate authority is not in conformity with the requirement under Section 4 (ii) read with Section 5 of the Act. The argument advanced is that since the land in question lies in trans-Jamuna portion of Mathura and because it is single crop land as explained in Section 4 (ii) it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have given to the petition the benefit of this provision and the appellate authority could not confine itself to Section 4-A alone. 5. From Section 5(3) it would appear that the determination is of irrigated land and thereafter giving benefit of ceiling the surplus land held by a tenure-holder is arrived at. Section 4 (ii) so far as relevant provides that for purposes of determining the ceiling area under Section 5 or any exemption under Section 6 one and one-half hectares of single crop land or two and a half hectares of any other unirrigated land in trans-Jamuna portion of Mathura shall count as one hectare of irrigated land. The explanation appended to Section 4 (ii) says that the expression single crop land' means any unirrigated land capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any state irrigation work or private irrigation work. The explanation appended to Section 4 (ii) says that the expression single crop land' means any unirrigated land capable of producing only one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any state irrigation work or private irrigation work. Section 4-A deals with determination of irrigated land. The expression irrigated land' is defined in Section 3 (ii) as meaning land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4-A. The scheme of Act would thus show that where the case is of land situate in trans-Jamuna portion of the districts enumerated in Section 4 (ii) there has to be the application simultaneously of Section 4 (ii) and Section 4-A in order to arrive at the extent of the irrigated land. Ordinarily the extent of the irrigated land may be determined in keeping with Section 4-A alone, no doubt, but where the question pertains to land situate in trans-Jamuna portion of the districts specified there has to be the benefit taken into account as contemplated in Section 4 (ii) and this has to be simultaneous. The extent of irrigated land in other words cannot be calculated in such a case precisely without having taken into consideration the implication of Section 4 (ii). For that purpose the explanation appended to Section 4 (ii), referred to above, is also relevant. The appellate authority has had in mind Section 4-A no doubt and it has in that connection referred to the decision in Kalloo v. State of U.P., (1979 ALJ 1113): but there is an error apparent from the record in so far as significance of single crop land as explained in Section 4 (ii) has been lost sight of. According to the calculation made by the appellate authority 12.37 acres was unirrigated area with the petitioner. This has been converted to 20.05 acres by the appellate authority under the impression, it seems, that this would be so on applying Section 4 (ii). This itself may not be said to be the compliance of the requirement of Section 4 (ii) because thereunder regard is also to be had to the single crop land as defined in the provision contained in Section 4 (ii) itself. This itself may not be said to be the compliance of the requirement of Section 4 (ii) because thereunder regard is also to be had to the single crop land as defined in the provision contained in Section 4 (ii) itself. In case the land or any portion thereof falls within the explanation appended to Section 4 (ii), the nature or character thereof in the sense of being irrigated or unirrigated land may not be determined as per Section 4-A alone without giving additional benefit as is required under Section 4 (ii). For purposes of single crop land one and half hectares of land is to be computed as equivalent to the hectare of irrigated land and where there is unirrigated land otherwise two and half hectares thereof is to be computed as equivalent to one hectare of irrigated land. The calculations have not been made thus in conformity with Section 4 (ii) read with Section 4-A in arriving at the Ceiling area for purposes of Section 5 (3) of the Act and hence the same is vitiated. 6. Having regard to the above, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. The order recorded by the appellate authority dated January 13, 1983, (Annexure-III to the petition) is quashed. The appellate authority (respondent no. 2) is directed to re-determine the surplus land, if any, with the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein. 7. There will be no order as to costs.