Determination of irrigated land must strictly conform to the mandatory procedure under Section 4-A.

The original tenure holder, Gaindan Lal, held 13.9690 hectares of land.

Initial ceiling proceedings were dropped as his holdings did not exceed the limit.

After his death on 21.10.1989, the land was recorded in the name of his son, Vinod Kumar.

New proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, resulted in an order by the Prescribed Authority on 30.12.1995 declaring 4.8528 hectares as surplus.

This was challenged and remanded on 29.03.1997 for reconsideration based on holdings as of 08.06.1973.

Following remand, the Prescribed Authority passed an order on 21.03.1998, which was subsequently set aside by the Additional Commissioner via the impugned order dated 07.09.1998.

The State challenged this appellate order, arguing that the appellate authority wrongly extended benefits under Section 5(3)(b) by considering post-1973 events.

1. Whether the Prescribed Authority failed to comply with the mandatory directions of the remand order dated 29.03.1997.

2. Whether the determination of "irrigated land" was conducted in accordance with the mandatory procedure under Section 4-A of the Act and Rule 19(3).

3. Whether the appellate authority committed a jurisdictional error in setting aside the Prescribed Authority's order for procedural non-compliance.

The court applied Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which mandates the examination of Khasras for Fasli years 1378-1380 and the village map to determine "irrigated land".

It relied on *Ram Nagina Chaudhary v. State (1978 RD 280)*, establishing that a remand order is binding on subordinate authorities who must carry out directions strictly.

The court further cited *Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P. (1979 All LJ 25)* and *Ram Sagar v. Civil Judge Bahraich (1985 All LJ 125)*, which place the burden of proof on the State to establish the irrigated character of land through specific revenue records, failing which the determination is vitiated.

The Court observed that the Prescribed Authority failed to adhere to the statutory mandate under Section 4-A during the re-determination process following the remand.

Specifically, the authority did not conduct a spot inspection or properly examine the relevant oral and documentary evidence (Khasras of 1378-1380 Fasli) required to classify the land as irrigated vs. unirrigated.

The High Court noted that the appellate authority correctly identified these material irregularities and the Prescribed Authority’s failure to act within the confines of the previous remand order.

Since the State (petitioner) could not demonstrate that the mandatory procedural requirements were met, the High Court found that the appellate authority acted within its jurisdiction to set aside the flawed order.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that subordinate authorities are bound by remand directions and that any determination of surplus land without verifying primary revenue records is invalid.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed, and the appellate order setting aside the surplus land declaration was upheld.