Arun Tandon, J.: - Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Proceedings under section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner culminated in an order of the Proscribed Authority dated 30th June, 1976, wherein 35.29 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, recorded tenure holder/peti­tioner filed an appeal before the Commis­sioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi under section 13 of the Act, 1960 being Appeal No. 930 of 1976. The appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi under the order dated 12/19th Janu­ary, 1978 and five directions were issued, namely, (a) an area of 24.22 ordinary acres of land covered by the sale-deed dated 17th March, 1962 executed in favour of one Chandra Shekhar be excluded from the holding of the petitioner, (b) an area of 18.23 ordinary acres of land covered by the sale-deed dated 24th January, 1970 exe­cuted in favour of Smt. Kamla Bai be simi­larly excluded from the holding of the pe­titioner, (c) share of the petitioner in the coparcenery property be fixed as 1/6th place of 1/3rd (d) an area of 2.5 acres land of village Gayar be treated as un-irrigated land, and (e) in respect of plot Nos. 543 and 544 of same village Gayar only 3.50 acres of land be treatedas irrigated and the remain­ing area be treated as single crop irrigated land. The Prescribed Authority was directed to recalculate the ceiling limits of the petitioner accordingly. 3. In order to keep the records straight, it may be noticed that the recorded tenure holder filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging herein that certain mistakes qua plot numbers have crept in the order of the appellate authority being Writ Petition No. 975 of 1980. The writ petition was dismissed under the order dated 18th August, 1981, as a result whereof the order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978 was affirmed. 4. The Prescribed Authority in compliance to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th February, 1979 recalculated the ceiling limits of the petitioner after granting benefits as directed, declared that he had 9.84 acres of irrigated land as surplus. 4. The Prescribed Authority in compliance to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th February, 1979 recalculated the ceiling limits of the petitioner after granting benefits as directed, declared that he had 9.84 acres of irrigated land as surplus. This order was followed by an order under section 12 of Act, 1960 dated 20th December, 1982 affirming the earlier order, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition noticed above. 5. The recorded tenure holder made an application for recall of the aforesaid two orders on the ground that the same were ex-parte. This application of the recorded tenure holder was granted by the Prescribed Authority under the order dated 13th November, 1984. Petitioner thereafter filed objections on 28th November, 1984 in respect of certain portion of land being treated as irrigated as well as for benefit of reduction in area due to consolidation operation being granted in favour of the petitioner. This application of the petitioner was partly allowed by the Prescribed Authority and total surplus land was reduced to 8.66 acres of irrigated land. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the recorded tenure holder filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi under section 13 of Act, 1960 being Appeal No. 153/185/67/110 of 1987-88. The appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner under the order dated 13th April,. 1988. It is against these two orders that he present writ petition has been filed. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri M.D. Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Advocate vehementally contended that the total land which was declared as surplus under the order of the Prescribed Authority at the first instance was 35.29 acres of irrigated land. Under the order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978, (which, as already been noticed above, stands affirmed with the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the present petitioner), the land transferred under the sale-deed dated 17th March, 1962 (24.22 acres) and the land transferred under the sale-deed dated 24th January, 1970 (18.23 acres) was liable to be excluded. The total whereof would work out 42.45 acres and if this land is excluded, it would be clear that the petitioner had no surplus land left and therefore, the entire proceedings were liable to be dropped. All subsequent proceedings are wholly misconceived. The total whereof would work out 42.45 acres and if this land is excluded, it would be clear that the petitioner had no surplus land left and therefore, the entire proceedings were liable to be dropped. All subsequent proceedings are wholly misconceived. It is contended that the Prescribed Authority has also not complied with the part of the order of the appellate authority, which provided that in the coparcenerey property, petitioner had only 1/6th share. It is also clarified that as against the total area of plot Nos. 241 and 244 of village Gayar, only 3.5 acres of land could be treated as irrigated and remaining 2.5 acres of land was to be treated as single crop land in view of the order of the appellate authority, which would work out to 1.6 acres of irrigated land. Benefit whereof has not been granted. Lastly it is submitted that the benefit of reduction in area due to consolidation operation has not been provided to the petitioner and therefore, the order of the Prescribed Authority is bad. 7. The Appellate Authority under the order dated 13th April, 1988 has specifically recorded that from a bare reading of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18th November, 1985 it was apparently clear that the directions issued by the appellate authority under it earlier order dated 19th January, 1978 have been carried out. The benefit provided thereof in respect of the land covered by the sale-deeds had been provided. So far as the plot Nos. 241 and 244 are concerned, it has been recorded that in the order of the appellate authority there is no mention of plot Nos. 241 and 244 and therefore, the claim set up by the petitioner in that regard isf misconceived. Similarly it has been recorded that in respect of ancestral property the share of the petitioner had been determined as 1/6th only. Lastly it has been recorded that the benefit of reduction of area due to consolidation operation has been granted to the recorded tenure holder. With regard to plot Nos. 543 and 544, it has been recorded that plot no. Lastly it has been recorded that the benefit of reduction of area due to consolidation operation has been granted to the recorded tenure holder. With regard to plot Nos. 543 and 544, it has been recorded that plot no. 543 is not shown as tenure holing of the petitioner in form-III and similarly the total area of plot No. 544 as per form-III, has been shown as 1.73 acres only and therefore, the question of treating 3.5 acres of said plot as irrigated is neither here nor there. It may also be recorded that before the appellate authority, petitioner had also contended that a road has been constructed in village Gayar qua which 1.67 acres of Irrigated land has been utilized, which should be excluded. The said contention of the petitioner has not been accepted on the ground that petitioner could not demonstrate that such road had been constructed prior to 8th June, 1973. 8. All the grounds raised before the appellate authority have been reiterated before this Court. 9. So far as the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, this Court may record that under the order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978, 24.22 ordinary acres of land covered by sale-deed dated 17th March, 1962 and 18.23 ordinary acres of land covered by sale-deed dated 24th January, 1970 were directed to be excluded. Section 4 of Act, 1960 provides that one and one half hectares of un-irrigated land would be equivalent to one hectare of irrigated land i.e. for every one-and-one-half acres of unirrigated land, equivalent would be one acres of irrigated land. 10. From the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th January, 1978, it is apparently clear that the total area of two sale-deeds taken together would work out 42.45 ordinary acres. Under the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30th June, 1976, the petitioner was declared 'to be in possession of 35.29 acres of irrigated land as surplus, which would work out to 54 acres approximately of unirrigated land. The Prescribed Authority after granting benefit of 44.44 acres of land has determined declared that petitioner had 9.84 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Subsequent to the consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, this area of surplus land was reduced to 8.66 acres of irrigated land under the order dated 18th November, 1985. 11. The Prescribed Authority after granting benefit of 44.44 acres of land has determined declared that petitioner had 9.84 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Subsequent to the consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, this area of surplus land was reduced to 8.66 acres of irrigated land under the order dated 18th November, 1985. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since under the order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978, the word "ordinary acre" has been used, it will not mean that the land was unirrigated and therefore, if the entire holding covered by aforesaid two sale-deeds is excluded, the petitioner will have no surplus land and proceedings should have been dropped at that stage. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not appeal to the Court for the simple reasons that if the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was correct, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for re-determination of ceiling limits, inasmuch as on simple calculation as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority would have seen that tenure holder had no surplus land. In the opinion of the Court the use of the word "ordinary acre' necessarily means unirrigated land in the facts of the case and it is in this background that at no point of time petitioner had ever questioned before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority that the proceedings should have been dropped after passing of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th January, 1978 as there is no surplus land with the petitioner. On the contrary from the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority with reference to the objections filed by the petitioner after remand it is apparently clear that he had contended that his share in ancestral property be treated as 1/6th and certain plots be treated to be unirrigated also. 13. It is not the case of the petitioner, in the present writ petition also nor it was in the memo of appeal nor in his objections filed by him before the Prescribed Authority that area disclosed in the sale-deed dated 17th March, 1962 and dated 24th January, 1970 was in respect of land in irrigated terms. 13. It is not the case of the petitioner, in the present writ petition also nor it was in the memo of appeal nor in his objections filed by him before the Prescribed Authority that area disclosed in the sale-deed dated 17th March, 1962 and dated 24th January, 1970 was in respect of land in irrigated terms. Such argument is being advanced only for the first time before this Court. I shall not permit the petitioner to raise an altogether new ground, at such a belated stage. More so when the plea is factual in nature. 14. For the reasons above, this Court holds that the appellate authority is legally justified in recording a finding that the earlier order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978 has been carried out in letter and in spirit by the Prescribed Authority by excluding the land covered by sale deeds dated 17th March, 1962 and 24th January, 1970 from the holding of the petitioner. Finding in that regard is affirmed. 15. So far as the second ground qua the Prescribed Authority having not fixed the share of the petitioner as only 1/6th in the coparcenery property, is concerned, this Court may record that the appellate authority after noticing the plot numbers which had fallen in the share of the petitioner has specifically held that the same represents only 1/6th share of the total coparcenery property. With regard to plot Nos. 244 and 241, the appellate authority has recorded that the said plots do not find mention in the order of the appellate authority dated 19th January, 1978 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that 3.5 acres of land .of the said plot alone being treated as irrigated land, could not be accepted. With regard to plot No. 543, it has been recorded that the same was not included in form-3 issued to the petitioner and similarly in respect of plot No. 544 it has been recorded that the same has been shown as single crop land, total area whereof was 1.73 acres of land only. Therefore, it has been held that the directions in that regard under the order dated 19th January, 1978 for treating only 3.57 acres of land of the aforesaid two plots as irrigated is neither here nor there. Therefore, it has been held that the directions in that regard under the order dated 19th January, 1978 for treating only 3.57 acres of land of the aforesaid two plots as irrigated is neither here nor there. It has been further recorded that the petitioner has been provided the benefit of reduction of area due to consolidation operation, and that he has failed to establish that a road was constructed in the village concerned prior to cut off date mentioned in the said order. Such findings of facts of the appellate authority are based on appreciation of evidence on record. Findings of facts recorded by the appellate authority cannot be termed as perverse or based on no evidence so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.