JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the Order dated 24th November, 1981 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Agra, in an appeal purported to be under the provisions of Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts lie in a very short compass, and they are; the notices u/s 10 (2) of the Act were issued to the Petitioner to file his objection. Particularly it was alleged by the Petitioner that Chaka No 36, area 33 bights, 8 Bissau and 6 Kiwanis, situate in village Seward, and plot No. 262, area 10 Bights, 18 Bissau, situate in village Anal Cheri, were unrelated land, and they had incorrectly been treated to be irrigated. The case of the Petitioner was contested by the State of U.P. and the aforesaid allegations were denied. It was alleged that the statements prepared u/s 10(1) of the Act were correct. 2. Earlier the matter had come to this Court in Writ Petition 1587 of 1976, and the case was remanded to find out as to whether the plots in dispute were situate within 16 Kames. From the deep stream of the Jejuna River, as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. After the remand, the Petitioner filed a map prepared by the Education Department for showing that plots Nos. 36 and 262 are within 16 Kames. From deep stream of the Jejuna River, but that was not considered by the II Additional District Judge, Agra, as the same was not prepared by the Revenue authorities, even though after examining the relevant extracts of Chars some relief was given to the Petitioner, and the appeal was partly allowed. But so far as relief on the basis of Section 4 of the Act was concerned, the same was rejected. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. SMTP. But so far as relief on the basis of Section 4 of the Act was concerned, the same was rejected. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. SMTP. S.S. Chatham appearing for the Petitioner, urged that in view of Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act any map prepared by any authority of either the Central Government or the State Government was a relevant document to prove the fact in issue, and in the instant case even though the map was prepared by the Education Department, and since it was an authority of the State Government that map could not be rejected by the appellate court simply on the ground that it was not prepared by the revenue authorities. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has urged that as the map was not prepared by the Revenue authorities the same was not admissible in evidence. 4. After considering the arguments of either side I am of the view that the submissions made by the Petitioner cannot be said to be without substance. Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enacts that if a map prepared by any authority of the Central Government or State Government has been published, the same is relevant to prove the facts in issue. In the instant case also the map was prepared by the Education Department, which was an authority of the State Government, and hence the map so prepared cannot be said to be irrelevant. I am accordingly of the view that the map even though prepared by the Educations Department of the State -Government was admissible in evidence. It is, however, open for the States Government to furnish any map prepared by the Revenue authorities and to-"prove any contradiction in the statements of facts or the distance between the* two plots pointed out or indicated in the said map. While examining the map produced by the Petitioner, prepared under the authority of the Education Department of the State Government it shall also be open for the District Judge to permit the Petitioner or the State to examine some witness who can measure the distance in the map prepared by the Education Department or the map prepared by the Revenue authorities, if available, and filed on behalf of the State, and looking into the statement of such witness the appeal shall be decided. It is further made clear that the discussion made in the impugned order about the non-irrigated land would not be considered again. 5. In view of these facts the impugned order cannot be sustained in part and the same is accordingly quashed. 6. The petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is quashed to the extent that the map prepared by the Education Department and furnished by the Petitioner shall be taken into account and be considered by the appellate court. The case is remanded back to the learned District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.