JUDGMENT : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents. 2. This petition challenges an order dated 13.08.1987, passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as ''Ceiling Act'). He has also challenged the order dated 21.09.1992, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 13 of the Ceiling Act against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 13.08.1987 has been dismissed. 3. By means of the orders impugned in this petition, certain area of land belonging to the petitioners has been declared to be surplus. 4. The original tenure holder of the land in question was one Balak Ram who was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. In the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, an order was passed on 02.06.1976 by the Prescribed Authority declaring certain area of land belonging to the petitioners as surplus. Against the said order dated 02.06.1976, passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by the appellate court/authority, vide his order dated 03.02.1977. 5. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court, namely, Writ Petition No. 987 of 1977 challenging the orders dated 02.06.1976 and 03.02.1977, passed by the Prescribed Authority and appellate court/authority respectively. The said Writ Petition No. 987 of 1977 filed by the petitioners was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 01.07.1980 and the orders dated 03.02.1977 as also 02.06.1976, passed respectively by the District Judge and the Prescribed Authority were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to decide the question whether the land held by the petitioners was irrigated or un-irrigated, afresh. 6. It is in terms of the said order of remand dated 01.07.1980, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 987 of 1977 that the Prescribed Authority again considered the matter and decided the same by means of the impugned order dated 13.08.1987. As observed above, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of Prescribed Authority, dated 13.08.1987 has also been dismissed on 21.09.1992. 7. Lengthy arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also by the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents for and against the prayers made in this petition. As observed above, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of Prescribed Authority, dated 13.08.1987 has also been dismissed on 21.09.1992. 7. Lengthy arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also by the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents for and against the prayers made in this petition. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the record available on this petition. 8. The legal position in respect of determination of irrigated land under Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act is clear as per the law laid down by a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kallu Vs. State of U.P. reported in, (1979) AllLJ 1113. If the provisions contained in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act are read as explained by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kallu (supra) what is inferred is that the Prescribed Authority shall determine any land to be irrigated for the purposes of Ceiling Act on fulfillment of either of the three conditions/ingredients given in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority can declare the land to be irrigated in case irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop for the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli by any canal, or by any lift irrigation canal facility or by any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and at least two corps were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years, namely, 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli. This requirement for land being determined as irrigated can be found in Clause "firstly" as given in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. 9. The second situation in which the land can be determined to be irrigated is where the irrigation facility is found to be available to any land by State Irrigation Work which comes into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the U.P. 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. 10. 10. The third situation where the land can be determined to be irrigated is where any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well or a private irrigation work and the class and composition of soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. 11. Earlier the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as also by the District Judge, who was then the appellate authority under the Act, were set aside by this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 01.07.1980 primarily on the ground that the said authorities had failed to exercise the duty cast upon them for the purpose of determination of irrigated land for the reason that the Prescribed Authority had based its finding only on the basis of statement of Lekhpal and further that the statement of the Lekhpal was analyzed without considering the relevant provisions of Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. 12. If the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 13.08.1987 is put to closer scrutiny, it is apparent that the same is not based on the material available on record; rather it suffers from vice of placing reliance on a so called admission/statement made by the petitioners that the position in respect of irrigated or un-irrigated land may be accepted as depicted in CLH Form 3, Part A, Part B and Part C, which were issued by annexing them with the notice issued to the tenure holder under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The Prescribed Authority has not considered any evidence, neither has he weighed the evidence available on record and he, thus, appears to have got swayed away with the so called admission made by the petitioners that the position in respect of irrigated and un-irrigated land may be accepted and determined as shown in CLH Form, Part A, Part B and Part C. 13. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority, dated 13.08.1987 clearly shows that he has not based his finding on the basis of evidence or material available; rather his finding is based solely on the said "admission" of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest-Balak Ram. 14. Thus, so far as the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, dated 13.08.1987 is concerned, it is clear that he has not discussed any evidence. 14. Thus, so far as the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, dated 13.08.1987 is concerned, it is clear that he has not discussed any evidence. No acceptable argument has been placed before the court to suggest that the evidence available on record was considered by the Prescribed Authority. He has placed reliance only on the statement made by Balak Ram. The question in these circumstances is as to whether the alleged admission made by Balak Ram would suffice to return the finding for the purposes of determination of irrigated/un-irrigated land held by the petitioners. ^^[kkrsnkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd ekeys esa LFky ds fujh{k.k ls fLFkfr vkSj my> xbZ gS vkSj ubZ ubZ ifjfLFkfr mRiUu gks xbZ gSA uk;c rglhynkj us funsZ'k ls Hkh vf/kd vkxs tkdj dk;Zokgh dh tks fd mfpr ugha FkkA nqckjk tc og LFky fujh{k.k ds fy, x;s rks mUgksua fdlh dks lwfpr Hkh ugha fd;k tSlk fd mUgksus viuh ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr,o ;g mfpr gksxk fd uksfVl ds lkFk layXu izi= 3d] [k o x esa n'kkZ;h xbZ fLFkfr dks gh Lohdkj djds ekeys dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk;A ljdkj dh vkSj ls lEcU/k esa dksbZ vkifŸk ugha dh xbZA^^ 15. While noting down the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority, it has, thus, been noticed by the Prescribed Authority in his order dated 13.08.1987 that the tenure holder states that it would be appropriate that the position in respect of the irrigated/un-irrigated land as shown in CLH Form 3, Part A, Part B and Part C be accepted and accordingly the matter be decided. 16. The reliance placed by the learned Prescribed Authority on the said alleged statement/admission said to have been made by Balak Ram, the tenure holder cannot be sustained for the simple reason that no such statement was ever made by Balak Ram; rather it was the submission made during the course of argument by the learned counsel for him before the Prescribed Authority and secondly, it is also very relevant to observe at this juncture itself that no doubt admission is the best evidence, however, evidence is led by a party to prove some facts being asserted or denied by him before a court of law. 17. 17. The issue as to whether any assertion made by a party in the proceedings initiated under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act in respect of irrigated/un-irrigated land needs to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act is no more res-integra as the same is settled by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kallu (supra). It is not a case where there was a simple admission or denial by the party in respect of the irrigated or un-irrigated area of land belonging to tenure holder. In the objection made by the tenure holder, he had asserted that entire area of land held by him was un-irrigated and accordingly in view of the said denial, it was the duty of the Prescribed Authority to have determined the irrigated/un-irrigated land as per requirement and prescriptions available in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. The same was the mandate also of this Court in its judgment and order dated 01.07.1980 wherein the Court had clearly recorded a finding that the Prescribed Authority had failed to exercise the duty cast upon him and the case had been decided only on the basis of the statement of the Lekhpal and the same was done without considering the relevant provision of Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. 18. Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority was under legal obligation not only in terms of the requirement of Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act but also under the mandate of the judgment of this Court dated 01.07.1980 to have determined the irrigated area of land held by the tenure holder. It was, thus, his legal duty to have determined the irrigated/un-irrigated area of land belonging to the tenure holder strictly in terms of the prescriptions and requirements available in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. 19. The order of the Prescribed Authority, as already observed above, clearly shows that his finding about the irrigated/un-irrigated area of land is solely based on the aforesaid so called admission/statement made by the tenure holder, which as seen above, was not made by him; rather by his counsel appearing at the time of arguments before the Prescribed Authority. 20. It is also noticeable that any admission or statement against any statutory prescription is not liable to be accepted by a court/authority. 20. It is also noticeable that any admission or statement against any statutory prescription is not liable to be accepted by a court/authority. The alleged statement for accepting the position of irrigated/un-irrigated land as described in CLH Form, Part A, Part B and Part C is clearly not in consonance with the prescriptions available in Section 4-A of the Ceiling Act. For this reason, the reliance placed by the learned Prescribed Authority cannot be permitted to be sustained. 21. So far as the order passed by the appellate authority, which is also under challenge herein, dated 21.09.1992 is concerned, it may simply be said that the appellate authority appears to have based its finding on the sole documentary evidence i.e. Form CH-41 on which learned State Counsel has also placed reliance both before the appellate authority and before this Court in these proceedings as well. 22. Form CH-41 is prepared during consolidation operations which are carried out under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 and the Rules framed there under. Rule 93 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that the Consolidation Lekhpal shall prepare in duplicate Khasra Mutabiqat in CH Form 41 showing details of soil classification also, after renumbering has been done and checked by the Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer. CH Form-41 is a prescribed form under the Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said CH Form-41 contains in all 8 columns. These columns are (1) New number, (2) Area, (3) Old number, (4) Area, (5) New Khasra Khatauni number, (6) Soil class of last settlement, (7) Source of irrigation and (8) Remarks. 23. Thus, the information which can be gathered from the entries available in Khasra Mutabiqat which is prepared in CH Form 41 under the relevant provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1953 are only in respect of class of soil of a particular khasra plot number in the last settlement and as to whether any source of irrigation exists in a particular khasra plot number. It also contains certain other informations, however, from perusal of prescribed CH Form 41 prepared under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules, it is clear that said CH Form 41 does not either contain or disclose any information in respect of a particular khasra plot number being irrigated or un-irrigated. It also contains certain other informations, however, from perusal of prescribed CH Form 41 prepared under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules, it is clear that said CH Form 41 does not either contain or disclose any information in respect of a particular khasra plot number being irrigated or un-irrigated. Information relating to source of irrigation existing in a particular khasra plot number has nothing to do with drawing any inference as to whether the land is irrigated or not for the purposes of Ceiling Act. The information relating to source of irrigation only reveals existence of source of irrigation in a particular khasra plot number. There may be a situation where in a particular khasra plot number, the source of irrigation may not exist, however, the same still can be found irrigated for the purpose of Ceiling Act. 24. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the reliance placed by the learned appellate court on the entries in CH Form 41 in respect of the land belonging to the tenure holder for the purpose of determining the same to be irrigated, cannot be sustained for the reason that any entry in CH Form 41 can not be said to be a conclusive proof for the purpose of coming to the conclusion regarding the land being irrigated or un-irrigated. 25. For the discussions made above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. 26. The order dated 13.08.1987, passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 21.09.1992, passed by the Appellate Authority/court, as are contained in Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 27. The matter is remitted to the Prescribed Authority for taking decision afresh in accordance with law and also taking into account the observations made herein above in the preceding paragraphs. The Prescribed Authority shall take final decision in the mater on the basis of appropriate and thorough analysis of the evidence available on record of the case before him. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority shall be expedited and concluded within a period of three months from today. 28. Since the parties are represented before this Court, it is directed that they shall appear before the Prescribed Authority concerned on 31.01.2019 and no further notice to the parties shall be required to be served by the Prescribed Authority. 29. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority shall be expedited and concluded within a period of three months from today. 28. Since the parties are represented before this Court, it is directed that they shall appear before the Prescribed Authority concerned on 31.01.2019 and no further notice to the parties shall be required to be served by the Prescribed Authority. 29. It is further directed that adjournment of any sort shall neither be sought by the parties nor shall that be permissible to be granted by the Prescribed Authority, except in very exceptional circumstances. 30. It is also directed that till disposal of the matter before the Prescribed Authority afresh under this order, the status-quo, which exists on the spot as on today, shall be maintained by the parties. 31. There will be no order as to costs.