Arun Tandon, J.: - Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Proceedings under section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Land Hold­ings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960') were initiated against the re­corded tenure holder culminating in an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21st October, 1982, whereunder 8.55 acre land was declared as surplus. An applica­tion was made for recall of the said order. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 1st March, 1983 recalled the exparte order. Thereafter the file was transferred to the Court of Chief Revenue Officer, Varanasi. The Chief Revenue Officer after consider­ing the objections raised and evidence led by the parties vide order dated 10th May, 1989 declared that petitioner had 6-98-1/2 acres of irrigated land as surplus. Relevant plots to be taken as surplus land were also mentioned in the order itself. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 13 of the Act, 1960 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Divi­sion, Varanasi being Ceiling Appeal No. 1/5 of 1989. The appeal has been dismissed under the order of the Additional Com­missioner (Administration) dated 12th February, 1990. Hence the present writ peti­tion. 3. Before this Court following con­tentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (a) Sale-deeds executed between 1978-1981, which are 20 in number could not have been ignored by the Pre­scribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority as the same were bona fide transactions and the land covered by the said sale-deeds was liable to be excluded from the holding of the recorded tenure holder. (b) Since the land was transferred prior to the issuance of the notice under section 10 (2) of Act, 1960, the recorded tenure holder was entitled to the land so transferred being excluded from his holding in view of section 5 (6) (1) (b) of Act, 1960. He therefore, submits that the impugned orders to the contrary are legally not sustainable. (c) Land of village Ramna was not ir­rigated and that there was absolutely no material on record, which could establish that the land of the said village could be treated as ir­rigated. He therefore, submits that the impugned orders to the contrary are legally not sustainable. (c) Land of village Ramna was not ir­rigated and that there was absolutely no material on record, which could establish that the land of the said village could be treated as ir­rigated. (d) Similarly in respect of the land of village Nagava, it was contended that it was situated at the bed of the river and therefore, such land which was commonly known as Dariya Bund, could not be treated as the land fit for agriculture and had to be excluded from the hold­ing of the recorded tenure holder. (e) It is contended that the land situate in village Bhagwanpur was wronglv freated as irrigated when from the records it was established that the crops of marigold flower had been grown thereon. 4. In any view of the matter it is contended that in respect of the land of aforesaid three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur, there has been complete non-consideration of the condi­tions provided for under section 4-A of the Act, 1960 for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the land is irrigated or not. He therefore, submits that the impugned or­ders cannot be legally sustained. 5. Learned Standing Counsel in re­ply points out that admittedly, the sale-deeds have been executed after the relevant date i.e. 8th June, 1973. He clarifies that all the 20 sale-deeds have been executed be­tween the year 1978 to 1981. Such sale-deeds are required to be ignored. Legal position in that regard has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. v. Civil Judge, Nainital and others, (1986) 4 SCC 558 . State of U.P. v. Banke Singh and another, 1996 AWC 789. Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 636 and Rajednra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, JT 1998 (7) 136. There­fore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner qua bona fide of the sale-deeds, is misconceived. With regard to the land of the three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur being irrigated, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the facts of the present case, categorical findings have been recorded on appreciation of evi­dence, which may not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Consti­tution of India. 6. With regard to the land of the three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur being irrigated, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the facts of the present case, categorical findings have been recorded on appreciation of evi­dence, which may not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Consti­tution of India. 6. This Court may first deal with the issue with regard to the bona fide' or oth­erwise of the 20 sale-deeds executed by the recorded tenure holder between 1978 to 1981. Admittedly all these sale-deeds have been executed after issuance of notification under section 9 of Act, 1960. It is no doubt true that notice under section 10 (2) of Act, 1960 was issued to the petitioner on 23rd April, 1981 but in view of specific language of section 5 of Act, 1960, ceiling limits of recorded tenure holder are required to be determined as on 8th June. 1973, therefore, any land transferred by the recorded ten­ure holder subsequent to 8th June, 1973 has to be ignored. Legal position in that regard has been explained by the Hon'ble Su­preme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) and in paragraph-15 it has been held as follows: "15. Since, in the instant case, a notice had already been issued under section 9 of the Act and the pro­ceedings for determination of ceil­ing and surplus area were pending before the Prescribed Authority, the Sale Deeds, in question, which were executed on 26.8.1974 and 4.12.1975 respectively were oblivi­ously void being hit by the provi­sion contained in sub-section (8) of section 5." This Court may also refer to the judg­ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Banke Singh (supra), wherein sale-deed executed on 10th Febraury, 1978 was directed to be ignored as it was beyond the specified date. Similarly, reference may also be ha dot the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Civil Judge, Nainital (supra) and after noticing the Rule 19 of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961, in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 it has been held as follows: "3...................It also provides that where a tenure-holder dies before he is served with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority may serve such notice on his executor, administrator or other legal repre­sentatives and may proceed to de­termine the ceiling area applicable to the deceased person as if such executor, administrator or other le­gal representatives were the ternure holder. 6.....................Whatever surplus land was liable to be surrendered by a tenure-holder has to be determined as on June 8, 1973 and taken pos­session under the Act even though the tenure-holder might have died after June 8, 1973 and before such ascertainment. 7. We, therefore, do not agree with the view of the Prescribed Author­ity and the Civil Judge that for purposes of determining the sur­plus land the share of land in the hands of each of the heirs of Smt. Amna Begum should be treated as a separate unit for determining the surplus land. We hold that for purposes of deciding the surplus land which is liable to be surrendered from out of the estate of Smt. Amna Begum, the relevant date that should be taken into account is June 8, 1973 on which date the ceiling on holdings was imposed and Smt. Amna Begum became li­able to surrender the surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The heirs or legal repre­sentatives of Smt. Amna Begum together are entiteld to retain out of the estate of Smt. Amna Begum only an extend of land equal to the area which Smt. Amna Begum could have retained in her hands after the imposition of ceiling on land holdings and are liable to sur­render the surplus land. The High Court failed to consider this aspect of the question when it disposed of the writ petition." 7. The High Court failed to consider this aspect of the question when it disposed of the writ petition." 7. This Court, therefore, holds that all the 20 sale-deeds which were executed by the recorded tenure holder after issu­ance of notice under section 9 of Act, 1960 between 1978 to 1981 are therefore, liable to be ignored in the matter of determination of the ceiling limits of such recorded tenure holder at the hands of its heirs/legal representatives/inheritors. Consequently, this Court holds that the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no sub­stance, sale-deeds executed are liable to be ignored and therefore, question of transfer being bona fide does not arise. 8. So far as the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is con­cerned, this Court may record that section 4-A of Act, 1960 lays down the conditions, which are to be examined by the Prescribed Authority for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether a particular plot is irrigated cr not. Three different contingen­cies, namely, firstly, secondly and thirdly have been provided therein for the pur­pose. It would be worthwhile to reproduce section 4-A, which reads as follows: "4-A. Determination of irrigated land. Three different contingen­cies, namely, firstly, secondly and thirdly have been provided therein for the pur­pose. It would be worthwhile to reproduce section 4-A, which reads as follows: "4-A. Determination of irrigated land. - The Prescribed Authority shall ex­amine the relevant Khasras for the years 1378 Fasli, 1979 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, 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 corp in any one of the afore­said years; by - (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates notified in No­tification No. 1579-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 situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or 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." 9. From the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Ap­pellate Authority under challenge in the present writ petition, this Court finds that there has been complete non-consideration of the conditions which are required to be satisfied under the aforesaid three contin­gencies of section 4-A for treating the land to be irrigated. 10. From the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Ap­pellate Authority under challenge in the present writ petition, this Court finds that there has been complete non-consideration of the conditions which are required to be satisfied under the aforesaid three contin­gencies of section 4-A for treating the land to be irrigated. 10. It is held that because of the non consideration of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the requirements to be sat­isfied provided therein before treating the land to be irrigated the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority treating the plots of three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur, as irrigated cannot be legally sustained and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the appel­late authority only for the purposes of de­termining as to whether the land of the petitioner situate in aforesaid three villages, namely, Ramna, Nagava and Bhagwanpur, is irrigated or not to be re-examined in light of section 4-A of the Act, 1950 and the ceiling limits of the petitioner be redetermined accordingly. It is also left open for the appellate authority to examine as to whether the land of village Nagva lying in the bed of the river, which is commonly known as Dariya Bund is to be treated as agricultural land or not. For the purpsoe the appellate authority must record specific finding supported by reasons. 11. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the appellate authority. It is made clear that no other point is to be examined nor is to be reopened in the matter. 12. The present writ petition is al­lowed subject to the observations made above. Petition Allowed.