JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner Preetam Singh has approached this Court, by means of the present petition, challenging the order dated 11.04.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority(Ceiling/Upper Collector, Kheri) contained in Annexure No.2 to the petition and the order dated 12.01.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No.4 to the petition. 3. The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the present case, are that in respect of the land in dispute, the petitioner was served with a notice as per Section 29 of the UTTAR PRADESH IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960) proposing 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus giving benefit of 18.03 acres irrigated land to the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted the objections dated 06.03.1995 on the ground that the notice is barred by res-judicata and it is time barred. The petitioner also took an objection that the land of the petitioner is un-irrigated and he is entitled for the maximum benefit. A plea was also taken that holdings have wrongly been shown. On the basis of the pleadings, the following 7 issues were framed : okn fcUnq 1- D;k iquZfuxZr uksfVl esa vkifÙkdrkZ dh tksr dk fooj.k xyr fn[kk;k x;k gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 2- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} lhfyax vf/kfu;e ds varxZr okn pydj vfUre :i ls fu.khZr gks pqdk gS] tks i{kdkjksa ds e/; jslT;wMhdsVk dk && j[krk gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 3- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} iquZfuxZr uksfVl dkyckf/kr gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 4- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ dh leLr Hkwfe vflafpr gS rFkk bl vk'k; gsrq iwoZ fu.khZr vfHker i{kdkjksa ds e/; jslT;wMhdsVk dk j[krk gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 5- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ vŒtksŒlhŒ vf/kfu;e ds varxZr Ánr vf/kdre ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 6- D;k vkifÙkdrkZ ds fo:} iquZfuxZr uksfVl /kkj.kh; ugha gS] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk ÁHkko\ 7- vkifÙkdrkZ fdl lgk;rk dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4. The oral evidence of Area Lekhpal Sri Hussain Ali, Sri Awdhesh Kumar, Lekhpal who prepared the file and Assistant Registrar Kanoongo Sri Krishna were produced in oral evidence on behalf of the State and CH Form 45 and three Intekhab Khatauni of the 1399-1404 Fasli and Intekhab Khasra of 1402 Fasli were filed. The petitioner produced the oral evidence of Sri Himachal son of Moti Lal and himself. In documentary evidence, petitioner filed the mutation State versus Preetam Singh under Section 10(2) and copy of the order dated 18.07.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kheri in Appeal 36 of 1985; Preetam Singh versus State of U.P. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material and evidence on record, the prescribed authority declared 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus as no choice was given by the petitioner and the benefit of 18.03 acres was given to the petitioner. The details of the land declared surplus is given below:- fooj.k Hkwfe ftyk rglhy ijxuk xzke Xkk ŒlaŒ {ks=Qy [khjh fu?kklu ify;k ckyiqj 117 10&69 ,dM+ flafpr 112 7&43 ------- 118 feŒ 1&562 ------- 19&682 ,dM+ flafpr vFkksZ esa 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal No. 253 of 1996-97 against the order passed by the prescribed authority, which has been rejected by means of the order dated 12.01.1999 after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the consolidation proceedings, two sons of the petitioner, who had become major were alloted separate chaks but no notice was given to them, whereas the notice was required to be given to them being the tenure holder under Section 3(17) of the Act of 1960. He further submitted that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 was given to the petitioner beyond the prescribed period of 2 years, which was in violation of Section 13A of the Act of 1960 which is to be read together with Section 29 of the Act of 1960. He also submitted that the notice was barred by res judicata because earlier twice notices were given and when second time notice was given, though the prescribed authority had declared certain area as surplus but the said order was set aside in appeal by the District Judge. He also submitted that the notice was barred by res judicata because earlier twice notices were given and when second time notice was given, though the prescribed authority had declared certain area as surplus but the said order was set aside in appeal by the District Judge. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of presumption and assumption without any proof by the State and considering the provisions of Section 4A of the Act of 1960, while declaring the land of the petitioner as surplus as irrigated. Therefore the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on State of U.P. Versus Mukh Ram Singh and another; 1991(9) LCD 232, Badi Bahu Versus State of U.P. and others; 1997 (15) LCD 1265 , Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai Versus State of U.P. and others; 2008 (26) LCD 832, Bal Krishna versus State of U.P. and others; 1984 LCD 115, Ram Sagar versus Civil Judge, Bahraich and others; 1984 (2) LCD 300, S. Ram Chandra Rao Versus Nagabhushana Rao and others; 2023 (41) LCD 1, Bhagwan Singh and another Versus State of U.P. and others; 1996 (14) LCD 387, Raj Bahadur Versus State of U.P. and others; 1996 (14) LCD 248, Raja Mahipal Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2007 (25) LCD 1196 , Kaushlender Bahadur Singh Versus State of U.P.; 2022 (40) LCD 765, Adi Kumar Jain Versus Additional Commissioner(Admn) Faizzbad and others; 2016 (34) LCD 699, Smt. Binda Gupta and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2003 (21) LCD 511, Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others; 2022 (40) LCD 1836, Kunwar Bahadur Singh Versus Prescribed Authority/A.D.M. Ceiling, Unnao and another; 2022 (40) LCD 891 and Shantanu Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others; 1979 AWC(F.B.) 585. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the notice was given to the petitioner on the basis of Section 29 of the Act of 1960 in view of the unirrigated land became irrigated land therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding bar of res-judicata and limitation does not arise and is misconceived and not tenable. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the notice was given to the petitioner on the basis of Section 29 of the Act of 1960 in view of the unirrigated land became irrigated land therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding bar of res-judicata and limitation does not arise and is misconceived and not tenable. He further submitted that the petitioner had never taken a plea either before the prescribed authority or before the appellate court or this Court in the petition that the sons of petitioner have become major and they have been allotted separate chaks in the consolidation proceedings, therefore it is not tenable. Even otherwise, it appears that the sons of the petitioner have been recorded as tenure holders after passing of the orders, and during lifetime of petitioner therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit on this ground. He further submitted that on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before the prescribed authority, the prescribed authority found that there is tube well in the land in dispute by which all the land is being irrigated. The crops such as wheat and sugar cane etc. are being sown, which are not possible without water. The land is also domat auval and capable of two crops and of higher quality. The petitioner has failed to contradict the findings recorded by the prescribed authority, which are recorded on the basis of material available on record. He also submitted that before the appellate authority or this Court also the petitioner has failed to show that his land is unirrigated. 10. On the basis of above, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality or error in the impugned orders. The writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is liable to be dismissed with cost. Learned Standing Counsel relied on State of U.P. Versus The Additional Commissioner Judicial and Ors.; MANU/UP/2168/2022. 11. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. The notice was given to the petitioner in the year 1995 on the basis of Section 29 of the Act of 1960 proposing 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus giving benefit of 18.03 acres irrigated land to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 06.03.1995. 12. The notice was given to the petitioner in the year 1995 on the basis of Section 29 of the Act of 1960 proposing 19.682 acres irrigated land as surplus giving benefit of 18.03 acres irrigated land to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 06.03.1995. After submission of reply by the petitioner, the evidence was adduced by the parties. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the prescribed authority passed the order dated 11.04.1997, considering the evidence and material on record and declared 19.682 acres of land of the petitioner as surplus in irrigated terms and 18.038 acres of land has been given to the petitioner for use. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which has been dismissed. Hence the present petition has been filed. 13. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice issued in the year 1995 is barred by limitation under Section 13 A of the Act of 1960 as well as res-judicata. Section 29 of Act of 1960, on the basis of which, the notice was issued provides that where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 any unirrigated 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, the ceiling area shall be liable to be re-determined and accordingly the provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply. Section 29 is extracted here-in-below:- 29. Section 29 is extracted here-in-below:- 29. Subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land- Where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972- (a) one land has come to be held by a tenure-holder under a decree or order of any Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him; or (b) any unirrigated 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, the ceiling area shall be liable to be redetermined [and accordingly the provisions of this Act, except Section 16, shall mutatis mutandis apply]. 14. In view of above, where after the date of enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the unirrigated land becomes irrigated land 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, the ceiling area was liable to be re-determined and for the said purpose all the provisions of the Act, except Section 16 were applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of earlier proceedings against the petitioner that it is barred by res judicata is mis-conceived and not tenable and liable to be rejected because in case the unirrigated land became irrigated the proceedings could have been held as per Section 29 of the Act of 1960. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Ramchandra Rao Versus S. Nagabhushana Rao and others(supra), has held that the doctrine of res judicata, having a very ancient history, embodies a rule of universal law and is a sum total of public policy reflected in various maxims like ''res-judicata pro veritate occipitur', which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct and ''nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa', which means that no man should be vexed twice for the same cause. This case is not applicable in the present case because in the present case the action has been taken under statutory provision on the basis of changed circumstances, under Section 29 of the Act of 1960 therefore it is not barred by res-judicata. 16. So far as the plea of limitation in view of Section 13A is concerned, the said provision is for rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record within a period of two years from the date of notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14. Section 13-A and Section 14(4) of the Act of 1960 are extracted below:- [13A. Redetermination of surplus land in certain cases.-(1) The Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of the notification under[sub-section (4) of Section 14], rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record : Providing that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made, unless the Prescribed Authority has given notice to the tenure-holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provisions of Sections 10, 11, 12, 12-A, 13, 14, [15 and 16]shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to any proceeding under sub-section (1), and for purposes of application of Section 10, the notice under the proviso to sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a notice under Section 9.] 14(4) The Prescribed Authority shall, as soon as may be after the date mentioned in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1), notify in the Official Gazette every surplus land determined under this Act, or under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 or under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976. 17. In view of above also, the action taken under Section 29 of the Act of 1960 cannot be said to be barred by res-judicata or beyond limitation in view of Section 13A of the Act of 1960 because both the provisions are for different situations/contingencies. 18. 17. In view of above also, the action taken under Section 29 of the Act of 1960 cannot be said to be barred by res-judicata or beyond limitation in view of Section 13A of the Act of 1960 because both the provisions are for different situations/contingencies. 18. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sons of the petitioner had become major and after consolidation proceedings, they were alloted separate holdings, therefore notice was required to be given to them also but the notice was not given to them, therefore the impugned order is not tenable. Perusal of the objection filed by the petitioner on 06.03.1995 against the notice indicates that no such plea was taken by the petitioner. Even in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the prescribed authority before the appellate authority on 11.04.1997,this plea was not taken. Even in this petition and the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not taken this plea. For the first time in the supplementary affidavit filed on 23.11.2022, it has been stated that both the sons of the petitioner have got separate chaks, they are major and separate tenure holders and are entitled to get 7.30 hectare each under the Ceiling Act. This plea has been taken without disclosing as to when they became major and got separate chaks and how during lifetime of petitioner. Form 45 filed by the petitioner, though indicates the name of the sons of the petitioner, namely Gurmeet Singh and Paramjeet Singh having their separate chaks but it does not indicate as to when these have been prepared, whereas these have been got issued on 18.10.2022. On a specific query being put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to when the consolidation proceedings had taken place and the name of the sons of the petitioners were recorded separately, he had stated that the consolidation had taken place in the year 1998 and the name of sons of the petitioner were recorded separately. The prescribed authority had decided the case by means of the order dated 11.04.1997. Therefore it is apparent that at the time of start of proceedings as per Section 29 of the Act of 1960 or even by the time of passing of the order by the prescribed authority, the name of the sons of the petitioner were not recorded separately. Therefore it is apparent that at the time of start of proceedings as per Section 29 of the Act of 1960 or even by the time of passing of the order by the prescribed authority, the name of the sons of the petitioner were not recorded separately. Therefore the plea that the sons of the petitioner were separate tenure holder in terms of Section 3(17) of the Act of 1960 and required separate notice was not taken, therefore now at this stage it cannot be taken, even otherwise it is mis-conceived and not tenable. A query was also put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how during life time of the petitioner, the name of the sons of the petitioner have been recorded separately, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to give any answer to it. 19. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner has not been declared irrigated in accordance with Section 4 A of the Act of 1960. The prescribed authority without any evidence has held the land in dispute to be irrigated whereas it was unirrigated. Section 4 A of the Act of 1960 is extracted here-in-below:- [4A. The prescribed authority without any evidence has held the land in dispute to be irrigated whereas it was unirrigated. Section 4 A of the Act of 1960 is extracted here-in-below:- [4A. 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 crop 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 is 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. Explanation I-For the purposes of this section the expression ''effective command area' means of an area, the farthest field whereof in any direction was irrigated- (a) in any of the years 1378 Fasli, 1379 Falsi and 1380 Fasli 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 purposes of this Section. Explanation III-Where sugarcane crop was grown on any land in any of the year of 1378 Falsi, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Falsi, it shall be deemed that two crops were grown on it any of these years, and that the land is capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year." 20. The aforesaid Section 4A of the Act of 1960 contemplates the situations in which the land can be said to be irrigated. Firstly irrigation facility and growing of two crops in any of the three years. Secondly where irrigation facility became available to any land after coming into enforcement of the Amendment Act of 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. Lastly land should be situated within effective command area of lift irrigation canal, tubewell, a private irrigation work and class and composition of soil may be such that it may be capable of growing two crops. Rule 3 of the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Rules 1961, as amended by means of the notification dated 18.09.1975 w.e.f. 19.09.1975, provides; ''In areas where due to consolidation operations or record operations or for any other reason no Khasras were prepared during the years mentioned in Section 4-A, the Prescribed Authority while examining other records may also examine available Khasras for the three latest years preceding the year in which the Khasra was not prepared'. 21. The prescribed authority decided the issues nos. 2,3 and 4 together. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence and material on record and considering the Khatauni of the 1399-1404 Fasli and Khasra 1402 Fasli and CH Form 45 and 41 and oral evidence, which proved the same, recorded a categorical finding that there are provisions of irrigation in all the plots and wheat and sugar cane etc. are being sown which is not possible without the facility of water. A specific finding has also been recorded that in Gata No.115 of the petitioner there is a tube well from which all the gatas of the petitioners are being irrigated. It has been proved by the Khasra of 1402 Fasli i.e. the relevant year in which notice was issued and evidence of Lekhpal and Assitant Registrar Kanoongo. A specific finding has also been recorded that in Gata No.115 of the petitioner there is a tube well from which all the gatas of the petitioners are being irrigated. It has been proved by the Khasra of 1402 Fasli i.e. the relevant year in which notice was issued and evidence of Lekhpal and Assitant Registrar Kanoongo. CH Form 41 also shows that the land is of the high quality, the soil is Domut Auval and there are tube well in many of other gatas also. Accordingly recorded a finding that leaving the abadi and grove land of petitioner all is irrigated land and capable of growing two crops. These findings have not been challenged by the petitioner either before the appellate authority or before this Court and filed any cogent evidence to controvert these findings. 22. This Court, in the case of State of U.P. Versus Mukh Ram Singh and another(supra), has held that the prescribed authority has not specifically recorded the finding that the class and composition of the soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year. Therefore simply because there are two tube wells near the disputed plot, it cannot be held in view Section 4-A, and clause thirdly of that Section, that it is an irrigated plot. Moreover a finding of fact recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence including Khasra cannot be interfered. 23. This Court, in the case of Badi Bahu Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has held that so far as consideration of the agricultural character of the land, it is also significant to note that the notice was issued in 1982 then it was the duty of the competent authority to see as to whether the irrigation facilities were available in the relevant year as provided under Section 4-A. 24. This Court in the case of Vibhuti Kumar Bajpai Versus State of U.P.(supra) has held that question as to what extent the land is covered under water and is submerged in water and no cultivation is taking place on the same, has not been taken into consideration by the prescribed authority. 25. This Court, in the case of Bal Krishna Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has held that in Kallu Vs. 25. This Court, in the case of Bal Krishna Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has held that in Kallu Vs. State (1979 ALJ 1113), while interpreting sub-cl.(a) of section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act it was observed that if irrigation facilities of the nature mentioned in sub-cl.(a) of cl. ''firstly' of S.4-A are available only to a part of the total area of which a plot is comprised, it cannot be held that irrigation facilities were available for the entire plot, meaning thereby that other plot is not unirrigated. 26. This Court, in the case of Ram Sagar Versus Civil Judge, Bahraich and others(supra), has held that it is well settled that while computing the irrigated area, the prescribed authority has to consider Khasra and relevant revenue records in order to find out whether irrigation facilities were available to any land in respect of any crop. It has further been held that it is also equally well settled that the onus lies on the state to establish that the land which is mentioned in the notice is irrigated land. 27. This Court, in the case of Bhagwan Singh Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has considered the scope of Section 4Aof the Act of 1960. The relevant portion of paragraph 5 is extracted hereinbelow: "Section 4 A provides for determining a land to be irrigated under 3 conditions mentioned therein as firstly, secondly and thirdly. While enacting said provision the legislature was aware about the difference between soil capacity of growing at least two crops in one agricultural year and actual growing of two crops. In cases firstly and secondly of said section the language used is at least two crops were grown whereas under thirdly the test which has been provided is that the composition of soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops. The legislature having been conscious about the difference between the two and providing different test under different condition has been specific in providing for actual growing of two crops under Section 4 A secondly. For the aforesaid reasons it is to be held that under S. 4-A secondly unless two crops are actually grown after the date of enforcement of Amending Act and date of issuing of notice under Section 29(b), the land cannot be treated as irrigated.........." 28. For the aforesaid reasons it is to be held that under S. 4-A secondly unless two crops are actually grown after the date of enforcement of Amending Act and date of issuing of notice under Section 29(b), the land cannot be treated as irrigated.........." 28. This Court, in the case of Raj Bahadur Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has held that the land can be declared as surplus if the land was covered by the test laid down under Section 4-A. The test laid down under Section 4-A of the Act has to be followed in all cases where ceiling area is to be re-determined after coming into operation of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act 1972. 29. This Court, in the case of Raja Mahipal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has observed that the Prescribed Authority is required to consider the date of mutation in favour of the transferees and the question regarding nature of some plot being irrigated or not or being grove or not and if there is reduction in valuation of land due to change of plots in consolidation proceedings. 30. This Court, in the case of Kaushlendra Bahadur Singh Versus State of U.P.(supra), has observed that it is apparent from the reading of Section 4-A of Act of 1960 that it is the statutory mandate that the prescribed authority is first required to examine the relevant khasras and local inspection as such is meant merely to be corrobrative and cannot form the basis for determination of irrigated land keeping in view the specific provisions of Section 4 A of the Act of 1960. 31. This Court, in the case of Adi Kumar Jain Versus Additional Commissioner and others (supra), Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others(supra) AND Smt. Binda Gupta Versus State of U.P. and others (supra) have also taken the similar view. 32. This Court, in the case of Kunwar Bahadur Singh and others Versus Prescribed Authority and another(supra), has held that for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960, the conditions stipulated under Section 29 are required to be fulfilled. The relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 are extracted hereinbelow : "14. 32. This Court, in the case of Kunwar Bahadur Singh and others Versus Prescribed Authority and another(supra), has held that for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960, the conditions stipulated under Section 29 are required to be fulfilled. The relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 are extracted hereinbelow : "14. For the purposes of a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of Act of 1960 pertaining to subsequent declaration of further land as surplus land after the enforcement of Amendment Act of 1972, it is imperative that the land has come to be held by a tenure holder under a decree or order of any Court, or as a result of succession or transfer, or by prescription in consequence of an adverse possession, and such land together with the land already held by him exceeds the ceiling area applicable to him or that any other unirrigated land becomes irrigated land as a result of irrigation under certain conditions. 15. Once the said conditions of Section 29 are fulfilled, the provisions of Section 30 of the Act become applicable. From a perusal of aforesaid proceedings, it is clear that for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of Act of 1960, the conditions stipulated under section 29 of Act of 1960 are compulsorily required to be fulfilled." 33. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Shantanu Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others(supra), has held that the existence of another remedy under the Act cannot validate the proceedings which are void for lack of jurisdication and which have resulted in the delcaration as surplus land of an area which a person other than the tenure holder who has been heard claims. 34. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Versus The Additional Commissioner Judicial and others(supra), has observed that in Explanation (III) of Section 4A, where sugar cane crop has been recorded on Khasra in any of the fasli years, it shall be deemed that two crops are grown on it and that land is capable of growing two crops in an agricultural year. It has further been observed that so far as the private tube well is concerned, the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the boring tube well before the prescribed authority. It has further been observed that so far as the private tube well is concerned, the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the boring tube well before the prescribed authority. The entries in one fasli year is sufficient to substantiate regarding irrigation work and crops on the land in question. The oral statement of lekhpal of area can be treated as a good evidence if it is supported by documentary evidence. The respondent has also failed to submit any proof either before the prescribed authority or the appellate authority to show the reason to disbelieve the statement of Area Lekhpal. In the present case also, the findings have been recorded on the basis of the Khasra of the relevant year i.e. 1402 Fasli and supported by the evidence of Area Lekhpal, Lekhpal who prepared the file and the Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo, which have not been controverted by the petitioner at any stage by any cogent evidence. 35.Coming back to the facts of the case in hand and considering the same in the light of the law and the case laws, referred above, it is apparent that the notice was rightly issued to the petitioner in accordance with law and as per Section 29 of the Act of 1960. The plea of limitation and res-judicata taken by the petitioner are not tenable as discussed above. The plea that notice was required to be given to the sons of the petitioner is also not tenable because it was never taken except in the supplimentary affidavit filed in November 2022, therefore since it was not taken before the Prescribed Authority or Appellate Authority and even in this petition upto the stage of rejoinder affidavit it is not considerable, even otherwise the petitioner has failed to give the relevant details in this regard and as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the separate chaks were allotted in 1998 i.e. after passing of the order by the Prescribed Authority. All the land of the petitioner, except abadi and grove land of petitioner has been found irrigated on the basis of Khasra of the relevant year, material and evidence on record, and the factual finding recorded by the prescribed authority is unchallenged and no material contrary to it has been produced, therefore the factual finding cannot be interfered by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed on mis conceived and baseless grounds, therefore it lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 36. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.