Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20305 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000155 of 1998 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Through Its Collector Kheri Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-State and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of the Commissioner dated 31.3.1997, whereby the appeal filed under Section 13 was allowed. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act was issued to the respondent No.3 on 9.5.1994. The respondent No.3 filed objection against the notice. After hearing the parties, the prescribed authority declared 6.822 acres land of the respondent No.3 as irrigated and surplus from the holding of respondent No.3, against which, the respondent No.3 filed appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1960, which was allowed vide order dated 21.3.1997, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in determination of irrigated land khasra of 1378-1380 is relevant to be seen for declaration of irrigated land and the prescribed authority, after going through the khasra 1378-1380, came to the conclusion that the land is irrigated land, therefore, the appellate authority in non-considering the facts referred above, has committed manifest error of law. He next submitted that the impugned order passed in appeal is erroneous in nature and is liable to be set aside. Last submission is that finding recorded that under form CH-41, the land has been shown to be un- irrigated is not a genuine document and cannot be relied upon by the appellate authority. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the appellate court has not committed any error in holding that the land is un-irrigated and cannot be declared as surplus land. Next submission is that the order of the Additional Commissioner is just and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. 6. After having heard the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 7. The fact remains that form CH-41, which is a relevant document of consolidation proceedings clearly shows that the land is un-irrigated and and the finding recorded, ignoring the said document, placing reliance on khasra 1378-1380, is erroneous in nature. Form CH-41 is the relevant document for consideration of irrigated and un-irrigated land and on the said basis, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the land is un-irrigated land. 8. In the opinion of the Court, the appellate court has not committed any error in law in holding that form CH-41 clearly shows that the land is un-irrigated land. Accordingly, the appellate court, while deciding the issue of un-irrigated and irrigated land has not committed any error in law, therefore, the finding recorded by the appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, thus, this Court declines to interfere in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gautam Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench