ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the; Act, and he filed objections. They were decided by the prescribed authority by his order dated 27-12-1976, a certified copy whereof is on the record. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 19-12-1978, a certified copy whereof is on the record. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard, Sri V.B. Khare, Learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the Learned Standing Counsel has made his submission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that some land which was covered by the Nala, should have been excluded. This objection was not taken in the objections as is clear from the order of the prescribed authority. Further, in my opinion, the mere fact that on a part of the plot there is a Nala. will not mean that the land covered by the Nala has ceased to be a part of the holdings of the tenure-holder. Being a part of the holding of the tenure holder and there being no provision under Section 6 of the Act, it will continue to be land. (See Mahendra Singh v. State (1979 All WC 165): (1979 All LJ 553) and Tribeni Engineering Works v. State, 1978' All WC (SOC) 33). 4. The learned counsel further contended that some land was recorded as river. It is not known what kind of river it was and whether the land was permanently covered by a river or not. All this should have been set out in the objections and necessary evidence should have been led. In the absence of the copy of the objections and the copies of the statements of the witnesses nothing can be said and, therefore, in my opinion, the decision of Gopi Nath, J. in Mahadeo v. Civil Judge, (1979 All LJ 284), would not be applicable. In the absence of the copy of the objections and the copies of the statements of the witnesses nothing can be said and, therefore, in my opinion, the decision of Gopi Nath, J. in Mahadeo v. Civil Judge, (1979 All LJ 284), would not be applicable. In the said case it was held that the land being in the bed of a river the tenure holder was an Asami of the same under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and, therefore, it could not be considered to be a part of the holding of the tenure holder in view of the definition of holding in Section 3 (9) of the Act. 5. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.