PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. The writ petition was heard in part on April 25, 95 in Court No. 34, and, thereafter, hearing of the petition was adjourned on the prayer of learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner Smt. Archana Srivastava. 2. Today, this matter has come up again for hearing in the presence of Smt. Archana Srivastava learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ram Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. b 3. But at the same time, before the argument in the case could be started, learned standing counsel expressed his inability just because of non-supply of case file by the standing counsels office. 4. This matter is pending since 1988. As such, this Court is not prepared to grant any further adjournment in the case, as it has appeared from time to time in my list from March 28, 1995 till April 25, 1995, and, remained heard in part. Accordingly, by the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. Writ petition is directed against the order dated January 29, 1986, passed by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Banda, being respondent No. 3, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which has been affirmed by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated February 15, 1988. 6. According to Smt, Archana Srivastava, the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority, which has been affirmed by the appellate order suffers from manifest error, as has been enumerated in the ensuing paragraphs. 7. Firstly, there was no proper determination of "irrigated" and "unirrigated area" in terms of provision of Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, in support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the specific state ment made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, wherein, petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 3, i. e. Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Banda has manifestly erred in law in giving finding on the question of irrigated and unir rigated land without considering the extracts of Khasras of 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli, although the petitioner had filed by relevant extracts of Khasras of 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli. But the Prescribed Authority failed to follow the mandatory requirement of Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act, while determining the irrigated land of the petitioner, as well as without examining the relevant Khasras of the year 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli, including the map of the village and other con nected records which were necessary to be considered prior to determining the ceiling and declaring the land as surplus. 8. Further she has also placed reliance on the case of Kallu etc. v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1990, AWC (SC) 42, wherein their Lordships Honble Natarajan, Honble K. N. Saikia and Honble Kuldip Singh, JJ. have interpreted the provision of Section 4-A of the Act. 9. In this connection she has also referred to other decisions of this Court, reported in 1979 AWC, 579 Kallu v. State of U. P. , as well as 1979 ALJ-All 25 and 1978 (4) ALR, 787-Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P and others, judgment delivered by Honble R. b. Misra and Honble J. M. L. Sinha, JJ, wherein the said provision of Section 4-A of the Act has been discussed in detail by the Division Bench of this Court, and, an extract of which is being reproduced herein below:- "in order to find out irrigated land Section 4-A makes it obligatory on the Prescribed Authority to examine Khasras for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 Fasli. It further makes it obligatory for the Prescribed Authority to examine the latest village map. It then confers a discre tion on the Prescribed Authority to examine such other records as it may consider necessary and also to make local inspection, if that too be necessary. The section then proceeds to say that thereafter, if the Prescribed Authority be of opinion, as mentioned in sub-sections firstly, secondly and thirdly, he shall determine the land to be irrigated land. There are no words in Section 4-A to justify anything other than that specified therein to be made use of by the Prescribed Authority for the formation of opinion on the points specified in sub- sections firstly, secondly and thirdly thereof. There are no words in Section 4-A to justify anything other than that specified therein to be made use of by the Prescribed Authority for the formation of opinion on the points specified in sub- sections firstly, secondly and thirdly thereof. The Legislature though it fit to confine the scope of enquiry to the examination of docu ments and local inspection presumably because almost everything that is mentioned in various sub sections of Section 4-A was capable for being ascertained on the basis thereof and, indeed, where any fact can be ascertained on the basis of documents, oral evidence can serve no useful purpose. " 10. This Court is also not unaware of catena of decisions rendered by Cal cutta High Court, on the similar provision of Section 14 (n) of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as amended, which are set out herein below : (i) 1982 (1) Cal LJ, 434-Reazuddin Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, wherein His Lordship Honble B. C. Roy, (later on a Honble Judge of Honble Supreme Court) has held that notification showing applicability of command area will not serve the purpose for determination of command area, but, there must be actual enquiry by the authorities, as to whether irrigation facilities are being received by deep tube-well and canal etc. (ii) 1984 (88) Cal WN 536-Haider Ali Mandal v. State of West Bengal, wherein similar view has been taken by Hon. Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. on 3. 1. 1986. (iii) 1987 (1) Cal LT 635-Rabea Khatoon v. State of West Bengal, wherein similar view has been taken by Honble S. Ahamad, J. (iv) 2 Cal LJ, 445-Radhaballav Roy v. R. O. , Kharagpur, wherein it has been held that the irrigated area is an area specified in notification made by the State Government which is capable of being irrigated at any time during the agricul tural year. Notification is not final determining point as in the West Bengal Act 14 (d) defines irrigated area. 11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments, delivered by Calcutta High Court, clearly establish that mere notification showing command area will not be suffi cient for determining the ceiling area, but, the authorities concerned must ex amine and go through the local inspection as to whether the land is getting actual irrigation facilities, either by deep tube-well, canal or any source of water. 12. 12. On the similar point, I have also delivered several judgments, and, one of those judgments finds place in 1995 ALJ 99-Ramadhar v. State of U. P. and others. 13. In support of petitioners case, Smt. Archana Srivastava has strongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswant Sing v. State of U. P. and others (supra), wherein Section 4-A of the Act has been thoroughly defined by their Lordships. 14. In the next place she has referred to another judgment in the case of Ram Soorat Rai Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, 1980 RD 7, dated May 1, 1979, wherein this Court has expressed in detail as to what is the obligation on the part of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority to arrive at a neces sary conclusion, which is being quoted herein below: "the appellate authority held the land to be irrigated. He observed that as tube-well was shown in the Khasra extracts hence the land would be deemmed to be within the effective com mand area or irrigation. This finding of the appellate authority is not based on correct apprecia tion of the provisions of law. There is no finding that the class and composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. The appellate authority treated the land in the third category of Section 4-A of the Act and held it to be ir rigated. In order to treat the land in the third category, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, that the land should be situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work. The appellate authority considered this condition to be satisfied on the ground that the laid was within the definition of private irrigation work. To bring a land within the effective command area unless it was covered by Explanation I of Section 4-A of the Act, the same could not be held to be irrigated. There is no finding that the farthest field thereof in any direction was irrigated in any of the years 1378-F, 1379-F, and 1380-F. There is no finding regarding the second condition also that the class and composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. There is no finding that the farthest field thereof in any direction was irrigated in any of the years 1378-F, 1379-F, and 1380-F. There is no finding regarding the second condition also that the class and composition of the soil was such that it was capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. In the absence of any determination regarding nature of the land in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act, the land could not be treated to be irrigated. " 15. In the second place, she submitted that in consideration of the members of family, the Prescribed Authority also had not considered the question regard ing the members of the family and family register, and, the said authority has reduced the family members from seven to five. 16. Lastly, she submitted that the Prescribed Authority has also taken into consideration of the land of other tenure-holders, namely, Gajraj, Phoolchand and Dhani, and, included their land for treating the petitioners land as surplus, which has been asserted in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. 17. There is no affidavit in opposition, filed on behalf of the Prescribed Authority, disputing the aforesaid facts, and, therefore, this Court has to decide the aforesaid questions. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the record, I am of the view that originally impugned order of the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Banda dated January. 29, 1986 (Annexure-7), which has been affirmed by the appellate order passed by the Additional Com missioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dated February 15, 1988 are liable to be set aside, by issue a writ in the nature of certiorari. 19. The entire matter will be sent back to the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Banda, being respondent No. 3 for redetermination of the ceiling area, after going through the observations made in this judgment and the references of the above-noted case-laws, within a period of three months from the date of produc tion of a certified copy of this order, after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 20. Petitioner is also directed to produce relevant evidence, if any, in sup port of his case at the resume hearing of the case. 21. Until fresh determination is made, parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today. 22. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. 20. Petitioner is also directed to produce relevant evidence, if any, in sup port of his case at the resume hearing of the case. 21. Until fresh determination is made, parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today. 22. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .