JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner's land has been declared surplus under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Aggrieved by the decisions of the Ceiling Authorities the petitioner had come to this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court through his order dated 15-12-1980, contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition, quashed the judgment of the appellate authority dated 11-8-1979 and remitted the question for decision afresh according to law regarding the classification of the petitioner's land :- how much irrigated or unirrigated. The appellate authority through its order dated 5-5-1981 set aside the order of the prescribed authority dated 11-7-1978 and asked the prescribed authority to determine the character of land of the tenure holder in accordance with Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act keeping in view the directions of this Court. See Annexure VI. Thereafter the prescribed authority through its order dated 27-1-1982 determined the surplus area of the petitioners 99 Bighas 18 Biswas as is evident from Annexure VII attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the decision of the prescribed authority the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 26-5-1982. This judgment is Annexure VIII attached with the writ petition. Now aggrieved by the decision of the ceiling authorities the tenure holder has again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the ceiling authorities have patently erred in determining the extent of irrigated land. The appellate authority is of patently erroneous view that oral evidence cannot be taken into account while determining the question of irrigated land. 3. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the private tube-well existing in plot No. 656 of village Sadhu Nagar was not in existence prior to 15-8-1972 and this aspect of the matter has been wrongly determined by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority has failed to address itself to the question on the ground that the oral evidence was inadmissible in evidence while determining the question of irrigated land or unirrigated land. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and he has tried to support the impugned judgments. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. 6. In order to determine the extent of irrigated land the ceiling authorities are required to construe the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act which reads as below : "4-A Determination of irrigated land - The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion : - Firstly....... secondly........ 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; and (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. Section 3(14) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act defines private irrigation work' as below : "Private irrigation work' means a private tube-well, or a private lift irrigation work operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from a perennial water source, completed before August 15, 1972.". In view of the aforesaid provisions I think that the burden lies upon the State to prove the extent of irrigated land. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the evidence led by the State to prove the extent of irrigated land should have been examined by the appellate authority. To my mind the appellate authority has patently erred in not addressing itself to this aspect of the matter. The appellate authority in observing that the oral evidence shall not be considered in giving a finding on the point of land being irrigated has placed reliance upon the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P., (1978) 4 All LR 787. The appellate authority in observing that the oral evidence shall not be considered in giving a finding on the point of land being irrigated has placed reliance upon the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P., (1978) 4 All LR 787. The aforesaid case has been considered and a Division Bench of this Court in 1979 All WC 579 has observed in paragraph 10 of its judgment as below : "...... It is possible to contend that merely because Section 4-A of the Act makes it incumbent on the Prescribed Authority to take into account the record mentioned therein and resort to a local inspection, it does not by implication debar a tenure-holder likely to be affected of the right to lead oral evidence in support of his objection. In Mohd. Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan, (1889) ILR 11 All 267 (FB), Mahmood, J. observed as follows : ".......I take it as an undoubted principle of law that everything is to be taken as permissible unless there is some prohibition against it. The principle is of such a comprehensive nature that it applies equally to substantive and adjective law, and has been recognised as one of the fundamental principles of interpreting statutes". Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid ruling reads as below :- "Since the question does not arise for consideration in this case, we, however, express no final opinion and leave the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Ghasi Ram v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1978 All 9 ) and Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P. (supra), to be decided as far as this aspect is concerned, in a case in which it directly arises.". In 1979 All LJ 565, Shiv Ram Singh v. State of U. P. another Division Bench has also expressed itself vide paragraph 12 as below : "......No limitation has been placed on the tight of the tenure-holder to produce evidence in support of his objection when the Prescribed Authority is called upon to decide the objections after recording his reasons and determine the surplus land, for at this stage the determination has to be made judicially. It appears that the attention of the Bench hearing the case in Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P., (1978) 4 All LR 787 was not invited to this aspect of the matter which led the Bench to make the observation that while classifying the land as irrigated land oral evidence was not permissible before the Prescribed Authority.". 8. In paragraph 13 of the ruling mentioned in the above paragraph the following observation has been made : "While dealing with an objection to a statement prepared under S. 10(1) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority is not on its own obliged to verify the entry about classification of land contained in the statement with reference to revenue records. However, while pressing his objection relating to classification of land as irrigated land the objector can without filing copies of the documents on the basis of which the statement had been prepared, refer to and rely on them as they form part of the material already on the record. Accordingly such an objection cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that copies of documents referred to in S. 4-A of the Act have not been filed. If the objector relies on any other evidence, it is his burden to bring the same on record. 9. Therefore, I think that the appellate authority has patently erred in not examining the claim of the petitioner under the impression that oral evidence was inadmissible in evidence. The extent of irrigated land should be strictly examined in accordance with the provisions of S. 4-A read with S. 3(14) of the Act. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions the ends of justice demand that the judgment of the appellate authority should be quashed and the appellate authority should be directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner with regard to irrigated and unirrigated area held by him so that the determination of surplus area may be done strictly in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the appellate authority is directed to re- examine the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.