ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief are these. The petitioner was issued notice tinder S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed his objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter, an appeal was filed. The appeal was decided by the appellate Court. There- after, a writ petition was filed in this Court and I allowed the same by my judgment dated 9-4-1979, a true copy whereof is Annexure l to the petition. I remanded the case with certain directions as to how the land was to be determined as irrigated or unirrigated. Thereafter, the case was heard by the Prescribed Authority and the said controversy was examined by the said Authority who passed his order dated 28-1-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the same was partly allowed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 15-9-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate court did not correctly decide the controversy and treated more land as irrigated than should have been treated as such on a correct interpretation of the Khasra extracts in question. I have looked into the Khasra extracts and in my view, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Division Bench in Kallu v. State of U. P. (1978 All LR 753):(1979 All WC -579) (1979 All LJ 1113), the petitioner has actually been a gainer by the manner in which the appellate Court below decided the appeal. However, as the State has not come up in any cross-writ petition, therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned appellate judgment in favour of the State. However, so far as the tenure-holder is concerned, as I have stated, he has been a gainer, if the law laid down by the aforesaid Division Bench is taken into consideration. 5. However, so far as the tenure-holder is concerned, as I have stated, he has been a gainer, if the law laid down by the aforesaid Division Bench is taken into consideration. 5. The learned counsel contended that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court both erred in not considering the plot No. 236 which also was one of the several plots in respect of which I had given direction in my aforesaid judgment dated 9-4-1979. It is correct that the said plot has not been explicitly dealt with either by the Prescribed Authority or by the appellate Court, but it seems that this was so because from the side of the petitioner no contention was pressed to substantiate that the said plot was unirrigated. No copy of the memorandum of appeal has been filed which could have shown that the petitioner raised any contention in respect of the said plot in the appeal or made any grievance that the Prescribed Authority had not dealt with the said plot in this impugned order. In these circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to seek to raise a controversy in respect of plot No. 236. 6. The learned counsel contended that in plot No. 104 the source of irrigation is shown in the Khasra as boring and the same on the authority of Whirendra Mohan Chaudhary v. State (IInd Additional District Judge. Bareilly?), (1979 All WC 9) should not be treated as covered by a definition of private irrigation work. In my view., the facts of the said case were different and in the facts of the instant case, there is nothing to show that the boring in the instant case being operated by anything other than the diesel or electric power. In any view of the matter, the foundation for such a case should have been laid in the objection by the tenure holder and then necessary evidence should have been led before the Prescribed Authority to establish that in plot No. 104 the boring concerned was not such as was being operated by diesel or electric power. Such a contention accordingly cannot be allotted to be raised in the instant writ petition. 7. This petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.