JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Basti, partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner. 2. A notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served upon the petitioner proposing to declare certain area of his land as surplus. The petitioner filed an objection alleging therein that plots nos. 15, 110, 176, 145, 6, 106, 58, 59 108, 370, 371, 372, 375, 378, 379, 381, 499 and 513 of village Bhilauri were unirrigated and had been incorrectly shown to be irrigated. The petitioner also challenged that there was no assured and permanent source of irrigation and two crops could not be grown in any agricultural years. 3. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 6-12-1974 declared 3-22-13 hectares of irrigated land to be surplus with the petitioner. In appeal, the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ No. 1063 of 1977, in this Court. The writ petition was allowed in part and the learned Additional District Judge was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and the observations made in the judgment. The High Court held that plot No. 110 of the petitioner shall not be included in the surplus area and would be permitted to be retained by the petitioner. 4. After the case went back, the Additional District Judge affirmed all the findings of the Prescribed Authority. But, as was directed by the High Court that plot no. 110 should be excluded from the surplus area of the petitioner the appellate court sent the case back to the Prescribed Authority to substitute another plot in place of plot no. 110 according to the choice of the petitioner. The parties were directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 1-10-1982. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this order, hence filed the present, writ. 5. The first argument made by the petitioners learned counsel was whether the aforesaid plots of village Bhilauri were irrigated. The Prescribed Authority had given a finding in the affirmative. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge found that there was a permanent source of irrigation from a tubewell constructed before 15th August, 1972, and that all the plots in dispute were irrigated. The Prescribed Authority had given a finding in the affirmative. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge found that there was a permanent source of irrigation from a tubewell constructed before 15th August, 1972, and that all the plots in dispute were irrigated. The appellate court further found that the quality of land was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. The petitioners choice, after remand made by the High Court, was not accepted by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the plots mentioned in the choice were those which had already been disposed of by the petitioner. 6. In support of this writ petition, three arguments were made. The first was that there was no permanent source of irrigation, hence the view taken by the two authorities below was erroneous. The submission is not correct. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge found in conformity with the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner had got a tubewell installed before 15-8-1972 in plot no. 110 and thereby his other plots being situated within the effective command area were liable to be treated as irrigated For finding that the plots were irrigated, the learned Additional District Judge applied Clause 'Thirdly' of Section 4-A. Clause Thirdly reads as under: thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work ; (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 ; then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act". 7. I have already found above that the tubewell had been installed by the petitioner before 15th August, 1972, and that the entire land was situated within the effective command area of this tubewell. Section 3 (14) of the Act defines private irrigation work, which means any tubewell completed before August 15, 1972. The tubewell installed by the petitioner fulfilled the qualification of Clause (a) of Section 4-A Thirdly. It was rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that the present case was covered by it. Section 3 (14) of the Act defines private irrigation work, which means any tubewell completed before August 15, 1972. The tubewell installed by the petitioner fulfilled the qualification of Clause (a) of Section 4-A Thirdly. It was rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that the present case was covered by it. The learned Additional District Judge further found that the composition of soil of the plots with the petitioner of this village was Doras, and, as such, it was capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year Khasra of 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli state that the Irrigation facility was available to this land in these years. In the extract of Khasra of 1378 Fasli, two crops were found recorded. In 1380 Fasli also, there is an entry of two crops. Taking these documentary evidence and the composition of land found on record, the learned Additional District Judge held the requirement of Clauses (a) and (b) of Thirdly of Section 4-A were fulfilled. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the tubewell was constructed before 15th August, 1972, was not correct, being against the correct interpretation of the evidence. This finding cannot be challenged in the present proceedings. Moreover, it is based on appraisal of evidence, documentary and oral. This Court has no jurisdiction to correct errors of tact. 9. The second argument made in this connection was that as the learned District Judge had not recorded a finding with respect to all the plots and had done so only with regard to a few, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was liable to be quashed. Counsel also urged that the Prescribed Authority did not give any finding on irrigation facility being available to all the plots and two crops being grown over the same. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The Prescribed Authority found that the plots were within the effective command area of the tubewell which was a private irrigation work and further that the quality of the soil was capable of growing two crops in one agricultural year. This finding of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. He has made a mention about some plots specifically. This finding of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. He has made a mention about some plots specifically. About others, the finding given was : "Thus, it can be safely held that the learned Prescribed Authority rightly determined the land of the tenure holder of village Bhiluara to be irrigated". This is again a finding of fact. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was about choice. Counsel urged that, after remand by this Court, the petitioner had given the choice to the learned Additional District Judge and he committed an error in not accepting the choice and in allowing the appeal partly without judging its merits. The submission is not correct. The application filed by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. In this application, the choice has been given by the petitioner serially (if one choice is not accepted, the other may be considered). The first choice was regarding the plots which had been transferred. There is no difficulty in finding mala fides with the petitioner in giving the choice of the plots which he had sold. Whether the purchasers could get the sale consideration or not is not relevant. Clause (d) of Section 12-A confers discretion on the authority to declare the land of a tenure holder as surplus other than the land which is the subject matter of transfer. In the instant case, the Additional District Judge did not accept the choice of the petitioner on the ground that the same was against Section 12 (d). In doing so, the Additional District Judge could not be said to have acted illegally or arbitrarily. The transferees further have not been mutated as parries. 11. So far as the choice of the plots other than the transferred plots, are concerned, the Prescribed Authority had already declared them as surplus. The Additional District Judge could not be said to have committed any error in not making observation of the same in the judgment. The petitioner also had given the choice in the alternative Amongst those, the plots already declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority also find a mention. Further more, this application of the petitioner with regard to the choice given in the appeal was hot a bona fide one. The petitioner also had given the choice in the alternative Amongst those, the plots already declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority also find a mention. Further more, this application of the petitioner with regard to the choice given in the appeal was hot a bona fide one. The attempt of the petitioner was to set the plots sold by him declared as surplus so that he may get back possession of those plots. 12. With regard to plot no. 110, the Additional District Judge has already complied with the direction of this Court. In lieu of this plot, which was earlier declared surplus but has now been given to the petitioner, some other plots of the same area will be taken possession of. For this purpose, the learned Additional District Judge has directed the Prescribed Authority to accept the choice of the petitioner. That being so, the writ petition has no merits. 13. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.