Arun Tandon, J.: - Proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner culminating into an order dated 22.6.1976 whereby 16.57 acres in terms of irrigated land was declared sur­plus. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 933 of 1976 against the said order. The appeal was allowed on 30.11.1981 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the tenure holders to file objection as well as to the other persons concerned. On remand after carrying out the directions issued by the Appellate Court, the Pre­scribed Authority vide order dated 6.12.1985 again declared 16.57 acres of irri­gated land as surplus. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority, two ap­peals were preferred bearing Nos. 161/222/194/6 of 1985-86 and 2/223/195/116-118 of 1985-86. Both the appeals have been dismissed under the impugned order dated 13.4.1988 by the Additional Commissioner. It is against these two orders that the pres­ent writ petition has been filed. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the appeal was fixed for hearing before the Appellate Authority on 25.3.1988. A request was made for ad­journment on the ground that the Counsels were on strike. The request according to the petitioner was rejected and thereafter on 1.4.1988 judgment was reserved. It has been stated to paragraph 9 that neither on 25.3.1988 nor on 1.4.1988, the records of the case were called for from the Prescribed Authority and in fact the records have been summoned only on 6.4.1988. The appeal has been finally dismissed on 13.4.1988. On merits it is submitted that both the authori­ties have committed an illegality in treating the land as irrigated land inasmuch as there is no finding that two crops were ever grown over the plot in question and there­fore, in the absence of any such finding having been recorded the land could not be treated to be irrigated. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Murli and others v. Civil Judge, Jalaun at Oral and others decided on 29th September, 1972 (C.M.W.P. No. 1095 of 1975). 3. It is stated that on 27.5.1959 plot No. 214 area 0.49 acres was bonafidely sold to Ram Singh and Gulab Singh even then the transferred land has been taken into account for determining the ceiling limits. 3. It is stated that on 27.5.1959 plot No. 214 area 0.49 acres was bonafidely sold to Ram Singh and Gulab Singh even then the transferred land has been taken into account for determining the ceiling limits. The petitioner had executed a gift deed, dated 3.9.1971 in favour of Smt. Mithilesh Kumar, who is none other than the daugh­ter of the petitioner. Two gift deeds dated 10.10.1971 were executed in favour of Laxmi Narain Jee Maharaj and Harpal Singh S/O Hira Singh. Plot No. 269/1 was recorded as 'Khaliyan' and Plot No. 298 as 'Shamshan'. Lastly, it is stated that the benefit of reduction in area because of con­solidation operations had not been granted to the petitioner. Such reduction had taken place subsequent to the issuance of the no­tice under section 10(2). 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 5. So far the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it may he noticed that under the impugned order it has specifically been recorded that the Counsel for the petitioner was heard and the submissions made by the Counsel have been dealt with. There is no averment in the writ petition that the finding so re­corded in the impugned order, that Coun­sel was heard, is not correct. What has been stated is that the request for adjournment was refused and that the case was fixed for delivery of judgment on 1.4.1988. In ab­sence of challenge to the fact recorded in the impugned order, that the Counsel for the petitioner was heard, this Court finds no reason to doubt that that the Counsel for the petitioner was heard by the appellate authority. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today i.e. after 22 years of the filing of the writ petition and for the first time in paragraph 14 it has been stated that the order has been passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and the allegations that his Counsel was heard is an incorrect observation. I am of the consid­ered opinion that such plea need not to be entertained by this Court after 22 years of the filing of the writ petition, especially when no such averment was made in the original petition. This Court refused to ac­cept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the order was passed with­out hearing his Counsel. I am of the consid­ered opinion that such plea need not to be entertained by this Court after 22 years of the filing of the writ petition, especially when no such averment was made in the original petition. This Court refused to ac­cept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the order was passed with­out hearing his Counsel. The first ground is therefore, rejected. 7. So far as the sale deed executed on 27.5..1959 in favour of Gulab Singh is con­cerned, both the authorities have specifi­cally recorded that the name of the peti­tioner continued to be recorded in the revenue records and at no point of time, the name of the purchaser was mutated. It has further been recorded that during the con­solidation operation the petitioner has been held to be the tenure holder of plot No. 214. The alleged sale transaction made on 27.5.1959 was a Benami transaction and the land continued to be in effective possession of the petitioner. The said finding of fact cannot he termed as perverse or based on no evidence so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second ground is also re­jected. 8. So far as the gift deeds dated 10.10.1971 and 3.9.1971 are concerned, both the Courts have recorded that the gift deeds have been executed after the cut-off date i.e. 24.1.1971. The gift deed dated 3.9.1971 is in favour of the daughter while the second gift deed is in favour of Laxmi Narain Jee Maharaj a deity qua which it has not been disclosed as to who was the mahant of the Mandir concerned. A categori­cal finding has been recorded that the land continued to he in cultivatory possession of the petitioner. 9. This Court finds that conclusions drawn are based on true and correct read­ing of sub-section (5) of section 2 of U.P. Imposition .of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 10. The petitioner could not satisfy the authorities below that he was not in con­tinuous possession of the land even after execution of the gift deeds and therefore, the land was rightly held to be ostensibly held by the petitioner. The gift deeds are admittedly subsequent to 24.1.1971 and therefore, squarely covered by the said section (2) of section 5. 10. The petitioner could not satisfy the authorities below that he was not in con­tinuous possession of the land even after execution of the gift deeds and therefore, the land was rightly held to be ostensibly held by the petitioner. The gift deeds are admittedly subsequent to 24.1.1971 and therefore, squarely covered by the said section (2) of section 5. Material revenue records have been referred in the im­pugned orders for holding that the peti­tioner continued to be in possession of the property in question i.e. Khasra entries in that regard have been relied upon. The gift deeds are liable to be ignored and the land covered by the same has rightly been treated to be held by the petitioner for the purpose of determining his ceiling limits. 11. So far as plot No. 268/1 said to be 'Khaliyan' and plot No. 729 said to be 'Shamshan' are concerned, a categorical finding has been recorded with reference to khasra entries that they are not recorded as 'Khaliyan' and 'Shamshan", on the contrary crops have been shown have to be culti­vated over the said land. For these reasons it has been held that the pleas set up by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid plots has rightly not been accepted. 12. So far as the issue of land being unirrigated is concerned, this Court may record that both the Courts have recorded a categorical finding that the land of the petitioner is within the area for which irriga­tion facility is provided by 'Betwa Canal', which is a canal of Schedule-1. The land has to be treated as irrigated. The Com­missioner has rightly held that in the facts of the case it is not necessary to remand the matter for determination as to whether the land was single crop land or two crops land as was being contended by the petitioner. This Court may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Singh v. Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others, 1996 (87) RD 233 (SC) wherein it has been held that a source of irrigation through any State canal or a private irrigation work would mean that the land was irrigable. 13. Only last contention raised on be­half of the petitioner, which is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Prakash Singh v. State of U.P., A.Civ. 13. Only last contention raised on be­half of the petitioner, which is settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Prakash Singh v. State of U.P., A.Civ. J., Page 400 needs consideration. 14. The petitioner has to be provided the benefit of reduction in area due to con­solidation operation. If the petitioner had disclosed the total area which had been so reduced during consolidation operation, this Court would have passed an order for such area being excluded from the total surplus land declared. But the facts in that regard are not clear and therefore, no man­damus in that regard can be issued by this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to file an application only for the purpose of reducing the surplus land, vis-a-vis the area of land which has been reduced be­cause of consolidation operation and for no other purpose. If such an application is filed within two weeks from today, the Prescribed Authority shall suitably modify the order declaring the land of the petitioner as surplus within four weeks thereafter and all consequential action shall be taken im­mediately thereafter. 15. For the reasons disclosed above, the writ petition is dismissed after granting benefit in except for the purpose of reduc­tion in the total surplus area the reduction in area effected due to consolidation op­erations. 16. Interim order stands discharged Petition Dismissed..