JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred against the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Agra, dated 30-11-1981. 2. It appears that the prescribed authority by an order dated 3-9-1974 determined the surplus area with the petitioner to be as 10 Bighas. The petitioners went up in appeal against that order of the Prescribed Authority. In appeal, Sri Y.B. Singh, III Additional District Judge, Agra, on 31-10-1977, reduced the surplus area to 3 Bighas 11 Biswas 6? Biswansis. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 1231 of 1978 in this Court. One of the grievances raised by the petitioners was that determination of plot no. 21 as irrigated was wrong, being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Jaiswal Glass v. State, ( 1978 AWC 577 ). The writ petition was partly allowed on 20-11-1978, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the controversy about plot no. 21 in the light of the observations made by the High Court in its judgment. 3. Upon the matter going back to the Additional District Judge, he reconsidered whether plot no. 21 was irrigated or unirrigated. After looking into the evidence on record, the Additional District Judge concluded that plot no. 21 was irrigated as the requirements of Clauses (a) of Section 4-A were completely fulfilled. However, having found that plot no. 21 was irrigated, the learned Additional District Judge held that the area surplus with the petitioner was 7 Bigha 15 Biswas 14 Biswansis. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this Court by means of the present writ. 4. The petitioners contention first was that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in applying the ratio in Kallu v. State, (1979 ALJ 1113), and in wrongly holding that the requirements of Clause 'firstly' of Section 4-A were satisfied. This submission is not tenable. The finding of the appellate court appears to be that there was an assured of irrigation and also that two crops could be grown. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel tor the petitioners was that as the appellate authority on 31-10-1977 had calculated the surplus area with the petitioner as 3 Bigha 11 Biswas 6? Biswansis, the Second Additional District Judge did not have power to enhance that area, when the State of U.P. had not preferred any appeal against the same. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel tor the petitioners was that as the appellate authority on 31-10-1977 had calculated the surplus area with the petitioner as 3 Bigha 11 Biswas 6? Biswansis, the Second Additional District Judge did not have power to enhance that area, when the State of U.P. had not preferred any appeal against the same. Counsel further contended that on a correct calculation, the area would be found either less or almost the same which had been found to be surplus by the appellate authority on 31-10-1977. Since I am not possessed of the entire material in respect of this argument, I consider it appropriate and in the interest of justice that this part of the judgment of the Additional District Judge may be quashed, and the Prescribed Authority may be directed to decide the actual surplus area with the petitioner on the basis of the findings arrived at by the various courts. 6. Subject to the above, the prescribed authority is directed to determine the actual surplus area with the petitioner afresh. No order as to costs. The stay order is discharged.