DEVI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Etawah dated 20th May, 1975. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal of the petitioner partly and modified the order of the Prescribed Authority by reducing the surplus area from 4'55 acres to 4.33 acres.

(2.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as on the finding of the learned Civil Judge water drawn from the tubewell with the aid of the tractor could not be said to be "private irrigation work" within the meaning of the said expression under Section 3 (14) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the learned Civil Judge committed an error in treating the land as irrigated. THE definition of the expression "private irrigation work" means a private tubewell, or a private lift irrigation work operated by diesel or electric power for the supply of water from a perennial water source, complete before August 15, 1972. According to the learned counsel in order that a case falls within the difinition of this clause it was necessary that the tubewell or the lift irrigation must be worked or operated by diesel or electric power and since the tractor was a vehicle and not a type of machine contemplated by this clause, therefore, the tubewell which was being operated by the tractor could not be a private irrigation work. THE submission made is untenable. A tractor too runs on diesel power in the form of a diesel engine with which it is fitted. THE fact that it is a vehicle is immaterial. As long as tubewell was operated by a tractor, it means that diesel power was employed and, therefore, Section 3 (14) of the Act is fully applicable. THE fact that the machine which operated the tubewell was a tractor is immaterial. It was essentially being operated by diesel power and the same falls within the four corners of the definition of the expression "private irrigation work."