JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceeding under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The judgment and orders impugned are dated 18.3.1997 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, Annexure-8 to the writ petition and 23.7.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner’s land measuring 16 bighas, 10 biswas, 5 dhoor was declared surplus and consequent thereon possession was taken by respondent authorities on 26.12.1974. The petitioner received another notice under Section 29/30 of the Act dated 22.2.1993 from the Prescribed Authority, Karvi, District Banda, under Section 10(2) of the Act for re-determination of surplus land. The petitioner preferred an objection stating therein that the ceiling proceedings have already come to an end in the year 1974 and possession of surplus land has been taken over. Subsequent to the finality of the proceedings, neither the petitioner has acquired any land nor it has become irrigated which may warrant re-determination. Copy of the objection is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority framed a number of issues. Issue No. 2 was whether the second proceedings are barred by principles of res judicata and issue No. 6 was whether second ceiling proceeding stands abated on account of advent of consolidation proceedings. Issue No. 3 was whether the land of tenure holder shown to be irrigated is correct or not and its consequences ? Issue No. 5 related to the question that subsequent to the land having been declared surplus in the year 1974, sale-deed executed by the petitioner is valid or not ? So far question of res judicata and proceedings having been abated was decided negatively and petitioner has no grievance whatsoever. The ceiling proceedings cannot abate on account of consolidation proceedings. It has no effect whatsoever and question of res judicata will also not arise as the notice under Section 29/30 was not in respect of the land which was already declared surplus and possession was taken over. The entire controversy in the instant writ petition revolves round the question whether the land retained by the petitioner is irrigated and records produced by Naib Tehsildar such as Khasra 1395 Fasli Mauja Malwara and Khatwara are shown to be irrigated by canals and tube-wells. The entire controversy in the instant writ petition revolves round the question whether the land retained by the petitioner is irrigated and records produced by Naib Tehsildar such as Khasra 1395 Fasli Mauja Malwara and Khatwara are shown to be irrigated by canals and tube-wells. This fact was also confirmed by Lekhpal Naresh Bahadur by his oral statement, an adverse interpretation was drawn against the petitioner. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner II, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide Ceiling Appeal No. 18/14 of 95-96 which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.3.1997. 4. The main consideration in the writ petition is that a subsequent notice on the basis of which a finding has been recorded that certain area of the land in possession of the petitioner is irrigated land and, therefore, he still has surplus land with him. The question is to be decided within four corners of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. So far Section 30 is concerned, it relates to ‘Determination of surplus land regarding future acquisition’ and Section 29 deals with ‘Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land’. 5. Admittedly, there is neither any assertion on the part of respondents nor it is any body’s case that there has been any subsequent acquisition by petitioner, on the contrary, admitted case of the petitioner is that he has sold some part of the land which was left to him after declaration of surplus land and possession was taken away from the petitioner under the ceiling proceedings. 6. Section 29(b) provides that any un-irrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation from a State irrigation work or any grove-land loses its character, as grove-land or any land exempted under this Act ceases to fall under any of the categories exempted. 7. A perusal of the impugned orders, it is evidently restricted to the question that certain un-irrigated land has now become irrigated from a State irrigation work and ceiling area is therefore liable to be re-determined. 8. Word ‘irrigated land’ has been defined in Section 3(11) and it means land determined as such in the manner laid down in Section 4-A. So far ‘private irrigation work’ is defined in Section 3(14). It 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. It 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. 9. So far determination of irrigated land, the essential requirement as provided in Section 4-A is quoted below : 4-A. Determination of irrigated land.—The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant Khasras such years as the State Government may notify in this behalf, 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 (a) that, irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years, by- (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No. 1570-W-XXIII-62-W-1946, dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years; or secondly, that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation Work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under Section 10; or thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal of 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 purposes of this Act. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section the expression ‘effective command area’ means an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated- (a) in any of such years as the State Government may notify in this behalf or (b) in any agricultural year referred to in the clause ‘secondly’. Explanation II.—The ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be relevant for the purpose of this section. Explanation II.—The ownership and location of a private irrigation work shall not be relevant for the purpose of this section. Explanation III.—Where sugarcane crop was grown on any land in any of such years as the State Government may notify in this behalf, it shall be deemed that two crops were grown on it in any of these years, and that the land is capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year. 10. I proceed to examine the two judgments impugned in the instant writ petition as held to be within the clutches of Section 29 of the Act only because it is claimed by the respondents that the land has now become an irrigated area. Evidently the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate Court have failed to give a serious consideration before coming to a final conclusion. They have not even tried to ascertain as to whether any canal and tube-well are available or its situation as well as their liability was to examine these requisite and necessary aspects before forming a final opinion. Both the Courts have completely overlooked the necessary and essential requirement before holding that land of the petitioner was irrigated. Not even a word has been mentioned to substantiate requirement of Section 29 that the character or nature of soil of the land has changed. The bounden duty of the Courts was that they should have given a categorical finding that previously the land was un-irrigated and, therefore, exempted. Now it is an irrigated area and that too irrigation facility is by any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified or any lift irrigation canal or any State tube-well or a private irrigation work as well as whether at least two crops were grown on such land. The basic character of the source of irrigation was essential to be ascertained, such as the source of irrigation could be termed as of perennial nature. The Prescribed Authority was liable to examine the latest village map as well as other records and also to make local inspection. The finding about irrigation has to be given on the basis of the evidence referred to in Section 4-A of the Act and unless requirement is fulfilled, finding based on non production of relevant records cannot be sustained. 11. The finding about irrigation has to be given on the basis of the evidence referred to in Section 4-A of the Act and unless requirement is fulfilled, finding based on non production of relevant records cannot be sustained. 11. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition, counter-affidavit and also impugned judgment of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority. It has been categorically stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 29/30 of the Act. A perusal of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority goes to show that no finding has been recorded that any un-irrigated land has become irrigated from the State irrigation work or the petitioner has acquired any land either through decree or by a Court, or as a result of succession or by prescription. On the contrary, judgments go to show that the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority have proceeded to decide the case as if the proceedings were in pursuance of the notice under section 10(2) of the Act. The Appellate Authority in its judgment has even recorded that the petitioner was issued notice under section 10(2) of the Act. On the contrary the judgment of the Prescribed Authority goes to show that the case was to be examined within the ambit of Sections 4-A, 29, 30 of the Act. This shows total non-application of mind by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 12. It was held in the case of Nathoo Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 ALJ 354, that it is duty of the Prescribed Authority to record reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the land is irrigated within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Act. Similar view was expressed in various decisions; Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, 1979 AWC 9, State of U.P. v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut and another, 2006 (100) RD 491, Indra Pal Mishra @ Raju v. Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda and others, 2005 (98) RD 699, State of U.P. through Collector v. Mukh Ram Singh and another, 1991 RD 312 and Ramadhar v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 RD 479. 13. 13. In all these cases it was held that determination against the land holder without making any inquiry about situation of land whether it was irrigated or non-irrigated, the authorities fell in grave error and judgment cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, both the Courts below have completely failed to make any enquiry or examine and consider the essential requirement under law while holding that the land in question was irrigated one which renders the judgment manifestly erroneous and liable to be quashed. The judgment and orders of the Courts below are absolutely without any basis and liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The judgment and orders dated 18.3.1997 passed by Appellate Authority and 23.7.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. —————