PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. By the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, entire matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal although the matter is appearing for admission after seven years. 2. Only point raised in the instant writ petition is that as to whether the Appellate Authority, being Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, after remand order passed by the High Court, has committed further error or of law by passing his judgment dated 11. 8. 1988, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 3. In the instant writ petition from paragraphs 8 to 12 petitioner has placed detailed facts, where the petitioner has alleged the extent or error committed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi while arriving at the same findings after order of remand, passed by Honble High Court, when the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed in part. The said facts are being set out herein below : 4. The Additional Commissioner has erred in law in folding that plot Nos. 579 and 535 of village Sirsa as being irrigated and in deciding the aforesaid the Additional Commissioner has totally ignored the relevant consideration required to be taken into account under Section 4-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act.) 5. Neither of the aforesaid plots can be treated to be irrigated under any of the three clauses of Section 4-A and the matter has to be decided on the basis of treating the said two plots as being totally unirrigated. 6. But the Additional Commissioner has wrongly held that the plot No. 579 as being capable of two crops and has also held the same to be irrigated arbitrarily on the basis of the fact that plot No. 544 had some irrigation facility available to it. The fact that plot No. 579 had irrigation facility available to it. But the fact that plot No. 544 had some irrigation facility available to it has no relevance, whatsoever, while determining as to whether plot No. 579 was irrigated or not. The relevant extract of the map of village Sirsa demonstrate that plot No. 544 and 579 are not even adjacent to each other and there is a substantial distance between the two plots as stated above. 7. The relevant extract of the map of village Sirsa demonstrate that plot No. 544 and 579 are not even adjacent to each other and there is a substantial distance between the two plots as stated above. 7. The Khasra extracts with regard to plot No. 535 also disclose that the same does not specify that the said plot is capable for two crops and the reliance upon the report of the Lekhpal is wholly erroneous. The finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner that plot No. 535 was irrigated on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Lekhpal is wholly erroneous as the enquiry under Section 4-A of the Act is limited on the basis of Khasra extracts and the other relevant records. The statement of Lekhpal was not even recorded before the lower courts. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the facts narrated in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that on earlier occasion when this matter was remanded, it should not be sent to appellate authority, as the appellate authority may not supposed to be a machinery to arrive at necessary conclusion as to whether the land is situated in irrigated or unirrigated area, in terms of provision of Section 4-A of the Act, as has been done in the present case. 9. In this connection there are catena of decisions of Honble Supreme Court, High Court, Allahbad and Calcutta High Court. Citations of which are being stated herein below : (i) Kallu v. State of U. P. and Others. , 1990 AWC SC 42; (ii) Kallu v. State of U. P. 1979 AWC 579; (iii) Jaswant Singh v. State of U. P. and Others. , 1979 ALJ 25: 1978 (4) ALR 787; (iv) State of U. P. and Others. 1980 RD 7; (v) Reazuddin Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 1982 (1) Cal LJ 434; (vi) Haider All Mandal v. State of West Bengal 1984 88 Cal WN 536; (viii) Rabea Khatoon v. State of W. B. , 1987 (1) Cal LT 635. 10. , 1979 ALJ 25: 1978 (4) ALR 787; (iv) State of U. P. and Others. 1980 RD 7; (v) Reazuddin Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 1982 (1) Cal LJ 434; (vi) Haider All Mandal v. State of West Bengal 1984 88 Cal WN 536; (viii) Rabea Khatoon v. State of W. B. , 1987 (1) Cal LT 635. 10. Accordingly, the matter is again being remanded back for taking fresh decision in terms of the earlier judgment of this Court as well as to the judgments referred to hereinabove, after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 11. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today, until fresh determination is made. 12. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .