JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava , J. - The only question raised in this petition is that Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has been correctly applied. The petitioners contention from the beginning has been that plots No. 341, 342 and 347 cannot be treated to be irrigated plots. The matter has been remanded once. Thereafter fresh proceedings had again started before the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. A perusal of khasra of extracts 1379F to 1380 fasli shows that although there was a tubewell in 1379 Fasli but only one crop of Kharif was grown and there khasra extract for 1378F was not filed as in that year it was not proposed is no mention of Rabi crop. From the oral statement of the lekhpal it appears that the petitioner has got a tubewell from 1376 Fasli, but there is no such statement that two crops were grown by the petitioner which is also requirement of Section 4-A of the Act. The Prescribed Authority should have examined the relevant khasra entries for the years 1378 to 1380 Fasli the latest village map and could have also made a local inspection. The District Judge has also not recorded a finding as to whether the class and composition of soil was such that at least two crops in an agricultural year could be grown. As such the writ petition has to be allowed. 2. The writ petition allowed and the order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge dated August 31, 1981 (Annexure 8) are quashed. The District Judge Additional District Judge is directed to restore back the appeal to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.