JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The then Zamindars of village Abahipur, Tel. Bindaki, District Fatehpur, granted a lease on 25th January, 1951, in favour of 61 persons in respect of certain land. The tenants later on formed a society, i.e.. Asha Joint Co-operative Society Ltd. Abhaipur. It appears that subsequently the land which was the subject-matter of the aforesaid lease was proposed to be declared as reserve forest. On the issue of the relevant notification in this behalf certain objections were filed, some of them were allowed by the Prescribed Authority whereas objections in respect of such land which was recorded as Banjar in 1959 Fasli were dismissed. Against that part of the order of the Prescribed Authority whereby the objections were dismissed in respect of the land which was recorded as Banjar as aforesaid, appeal was filed before the District Judge being appeal No. 2 of 1969. It was allowed on 29th September, 1972. It is this order of the District Judge which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition. 2. It was urged by the Standing Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. that since the land was recorded as Banjar in 1359 Fasli the State Government was entitled to declare the said land as reserve forest and the view taken by the District Judge that the said land being part of the holding could not be declared as reserve forest, was' erroneous. Having heard Counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that there is no substance in this submission. Before dealing with this submission, we may point out that one of the pleas raised before the District Judge and which has been raised before us also was that the registered lease on which reliance has been placed on behalf of respondent No. 1 had not been validly executed. This plea was repelled by the District Judge and, in our opinion, the order of the District Judge on this point does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea was repelled by the District Judge and, in our opinion, the order of the District Judge on this point does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In regard to the submission made by the Standing Counsel that since the land was recorded as Banjar in 1359 Fasli, the State Government was competent to declare it as reserve forest, it may be pointed out that the District Judge has held that the said land having been let out on 26th January, 1951 to various tenure-holders constituted a part of their holding and could not be declared as reserve forest. A Division Bench of this Court in Raghunath Singh v. Suite of U.P.. (1961 ALJ 686) had held that Section 3 of the Forest Act would not apply to land which constituted part of a holding. It appears that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in view of that decision, amended Section 3 of the Forest Act by the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act XXIII of 1965 and now the said section as applicable in U.P. reads : "3. Power to reserve forest. - The State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land or any other land (not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or any village abadi) which is the property of Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the Forest produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserve forest in the manner hereinafter provided. Explanation. - The expression holding shall have the meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and the expression 'village abadi' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Village Abadi Act, 1947. 3. Holding was defined in the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, as follows : "'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under one lease, engagement or grant, or in the absence of such lease, engagement or grant under as tenure and in the case of a thekadar includes the theka area." 4. The land in question was thus clearly part of a holding as found by the District judge. U.P. Act XXIII of 1965 received the assent of the President on 13th November. 1965, and was published in the U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 23rd November, 1965. The land in question was thus clearly part of a holding as found by the District judge. U.P. Act XXIII of 1965 received the assent of the President on 13th November. 1965, and was published in the U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 23rd November, 1965. Accordingly, when the objections in the instant case were decided even by the Prescribed Authority on 25th November. 1956, the Amendine Act XXIII of 1965 had already some into force. As such even if Section 3 may have been applicable to waste land in a holding, it ceased to apply to such land after this amendment. 5. For the fore going reasons, we are of opinion that the impugned order of the District Judge does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.