JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - The writ petition is directed against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Nainital, dated 11-12-1979. 2. Laxmi Lal was the tenure holder, on whom a notice under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) was served. Laxmi Lal did not file any objection. It appears that he had executed several sale deeds in favour of various persons in respect of some of the lands. One of the purchasers of the land was Jarnail Singh, the petitioner, to whom the land was sold on 5-6-1972. He purchased 52 Bighas of land under the aforesaid sale deed. Jarnail Singh as also other purchasers preferred objections. Jarnail Singh claimed that he was the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and, as such, the sale deed executed in his favour by Laxmi Lal had to be accepted as genuine. 3. The prescribed Authority decided the objections by the order dated 30-9-1978 and found 222 Bighas of land of Laxmi Lal as surplus. The sale deed executed by Laxmi Lal in favour of the petitioner was held to be invalid on account of the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner Jarnail Singh preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal no 239 of 1978. This appeal along with others was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital, on December 11, 1979. Being aggrieved, Jarnail Singh has come to this Court by means of the present petition. 4. It could not be and was not disputed that the sale deed having been executed on 5-6-1972 was hit by Section 5(6) of the Act. The two courts below found that the petitioner had failed to prove that the sale deed was bona fide and for adequate consideration. Accordingly, the position would be that the sale deed, so far as the State is concerned, would have to be treated as invalid. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prescribed Authority had wrongly treated the entire land of Laxmi Lal as irrigated and yielding single crop, and the learned Additional District Judge also committed an error in holding that the whole of the area of Laxmi Lal, including that which had been sold to the petitioner, was irrigated. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prescribed Authority had wrongly treated the entire land of Laxmi Lal as irrigated and yielding single crop, and the learned Additional District Judge also committed an error in holding that the whole of the area of Laxmi Lal, including that which had been sold to the petitioner, was irrigated. 5. Section 4 lays down that one and one-half hectares of single crop land or two and a half hectares of any other unirrigated land in the areas mentioned there-in shall count as one hectare of irrigated land. Amongst the areas mentioned in various clauses, one of them is Clause (i), which is "(i) hilly and Bbabar areas of Kumaun and Garhwal Divisions and Jaunsar-Bawar Parganas of Dehra Dun district. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there being no irrigation work, the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in holding the land of Laxmi Lal to be irrigated. Explanation of Section 4 reads as under: "Explanation.-For the purposes of Clause (ii) 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." 7. Section 3 (15) define "State irrigation work", meaning a canal as defined in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. For the purposes of a case being covered by the Explanation of Section 4, it is not necessary that the Canal should have been included in Schedule I of irrigation rates as is the requirement of Clause firstly (a) (i) of Section 4-A. The finding of the Additional District Judge was that there was a state canal available for irrigation. 8. As I have held above, the sale deed of the petitioner had been found to be not bona fide and for adequate consideration. On that ground, the petitioner will have no right, and would be liable to be thrown out on that ground alone. In this view of the matter, the question whether Laxmi Lal's land was irrigated or unirrigated could not be taken up at the instance of the petitioner. Laxmi Lal, admittedly, has not challenged that order. 9. On that ground, the petitioner will have no right, and would be liable to be thrown out on that ground alone. In this view of the matter, the question whether Laxmi Lal's land was irrigated or unirrigated could not be taken up at the instance of the petitioner. Laxmi Lal, admittedly, has not challenged that order. 9. I was further given to understand by the learned counsel appearing in the connected writ petition of Gurdev Singh v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, that a fresh notice under Section 10 (2) has been served on Laxmi Lal. If that be so, the petitioner will be entitled to raise such objections in the same as the law permits him to do. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay order is discharged.