JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 16-11-81 dismissing the petitioners appeal. 2. In the statement under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the Act) Plots Nos. 101, 168, 342, 390 and 292 situated in village Baheri, pargana and Tehsil Moradabad district Moradabad were shown as irrigated. The petitioners preferred an objection claiming that these plots were unirrigated and had been wrongly shown as irrigated. The Prescribed Authority held that the plots were irrigated against which the petitioners filed appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter preferred Writ No. 5069 of 1977 in this Court. The Writ petition was allowed in respect of the aforesaid plots and the case was sent to the Appellate Authority for deciding afresh whether these plots are irrigated or unirrigated. After remand the Additional District Judge held on 16-11-81 that the plots aforesaid were irrigated and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Against this order the petitioners have come to this Court. 3. On behalf of the petitioners the argument raised was that the Appellate Authority has committed an error in holding the plots aforesaid to be irrigated. In arriving at this finding the Appellate authority has acted against Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Section 4-A of the Act reads as under :- "4-A. Determination of irrigated land. The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary, and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed Authority is of opinion :- Firstly, (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years; by - (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1579-W/XXIII-62-N-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time ; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) That at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years." 4. The submission made by the learned counsel was that the controversy of the plots in dispute being irrigated or not should have been decided exclusively on the basis of Khasras of the three years viz. 1378 Fasli. 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli. He urged that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to consider the oral evidence and to hold on the basis of oral evidence that the plots were irrigated. For this proposition the counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P. 1978, Allahabad Weekly Cases page 577. In this case the view taken was that it was not open to the Prescribed Authority to permit oral evidence and it was required to confine itself to an examination of the records mentioned in Section 4-A and to a local inspection. 5. In the present case the position is that on account of consolidation operations khasras of the years 1378 Fasli and 1379 Fasli and not been prepared. For meeting such a situation Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act provides :- "In areas where due to consolidation operations or record operations or for any other reason no khasras were prepared during the years mentioned in Section 4A, the Prescribed Authority while examining other records may also examine available Khasras for the three latest years preceding the year in which the khasra was not prepared." 6. Under these rules the Prescribed Authority has been empowered to examine other records and in doing so the authority is also empowered to examine available khasras of the three latest years preceding the year in which khasra was not prepared. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under these Rules the Prescribed Authority cannot look into any other document or record except the Khasras for the three latest years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared. I am unable to accept this submission. The prescribed Authority has been entitled to examine other records, which can be a khasra or khasra even of the year subsequent to 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli. It is incorrect to argue that power to examination of records has been confined to the khasras for the three latest years. Therefore, do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 8. It is incorrect to argue that power to examination of records has been confined to the khasras for the three latest years. Therefore, do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 8. As Khasras of the three years were not available, the Appellate Authority was empowered to look into the Khasra of 1381 Fasli. In this year the source of irrigation mentioned is canal. On the basis of this Khasra of 1381 Fasli the appellate authority found that the source of canal was available in the previous years also. The finding arrived at does not suffer from any error of law. The ratio laid down in Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P. that oral evidence could not be looked into would not apply in the instant case in as such as the Khasras of the three years themselves were not available. This decision of the Division Bench has been dissented by another Beach in Kalloo v. State. 1979 ALJ Page 1113. 9. The Appellate Authority cannot be said to be incorrect in relying upon the oral evidence that the plots in dispute were irrigated. 10. Apart from what I have said above Section 29 of the Act also has a bearing on the facts of the present case. The relevant provision of Section 29 which can be applied is as under :- "29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land. Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 - (a) any land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him ; or (b) any unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove land loses its character as grove-land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined (land accordingly the provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply)." 11. On the finding of the Additional District Judge it can be safely concluded that the land had become irrigated hence, the Prescribed Authority had power under Section 29 of the Act to redetermine the ceiling area with reference to change position. The only thing that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners against this was that before re-determination the petitioner would be entitled to a notice and as this notice had not been given, this provision cannot be taken help of. I do not agree with this submission. On the facts found that all the 5 plots were irrigated, this section could be applied. 12. For what I have said above I do not find that the present case is not one for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.