JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Civil Judge dated 9-9-1955, the award of the Arbitrator dated 20-4-1955, the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 19-3-1955 and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31-1-1955 be quashed. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Petitioners are sons of Harnam Singh. The contesting opposite party is Smt. Bhilwati, widow of one Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh obtained a transfer of the proprietary and sir rights of Smt. Bhuria widow of Shibban who was son of Basti brother of Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh and Basti had equal shares in the Zamindari property in Khewat No. 44 in village Mahawatpur, district Muzaffarnagar. The share of each of them came to 22 bighas 17, 1/3 biswas. Both of them had sir holdings amounting to 25 bighas and odd. Basti died leaving Smt. Bhuria widow of a predeceased son as his heir. Smt. Bhuria transferred her share 22 bighas 17,1/3 biswas in the propritary rights along with the appurtenant sir rights to Fateh Singh as already stated. This transfer was questioned by Harnam Singh by means of a civil suit (Suit No. 1211 of 1931). There was a compromise under which 10 bighas and 12 biswas of proprietary rights were declared to be owned by Harnam Singh and the rest 12 bighas and odd were declared to be the property of Fateh Singh. The shares of the parties in the sir holdings were not mentioned in the compromise and the names of the parties continued to be recorded jointly over the entire sir area. 3. When the consolidation proceedings commented in the village Smt. Shilwati, widow of Fateh Singh who seems to have died, made an application u/s 10A of the Act for her share in the sir plots. It may be mentioned that during this interval the ZA and LR Act had come into force and the parties instead of being recorded as sir holders had become bhumidhars of the sir holdings. On this application the sons of Harnam Singh namely the present applicants filed objections. They claimed that they were entitled to a share in the sir according to their share which was recorded in the khewat prior to the coming into force of the ZA and LR Act. On this application the sons of Harnam Singh namely the present applicants filed objections. They claimed that they were entitled to a share in the sir according to their share which was recorded in the khewat prior to the coming into force of the ZA and LR Act. The case of Smt. Shilwati was that she was the owner of a half share in the holding. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 31-1-1955 held in favour of the applicant. On appeal by Smt. Shilwati the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his Order dated 19-3-1955 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directed him to get the question of shares decided by the arbitrator as provided u/s 12 of the Act. The matter was then referred to the Civil Judge who in his turned referred it. to the arbitrator. The arbitrator by his order dated 20-7-1955 decided that the share of Smt. Shilvati in the holding was half. The applicants filed objections to the award but the objections were dismissed by the Civil Judge and the award was made a rule of the Court. The applicants filed an appeal to the District Judge but the District Judge dismissed the appeal. (It is doubtful whether any appeal lay to the District Judge at all). Then the Consolidation Officer proceeded to partition the property in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator. The applicants pray that the award of the arbitrator, the orders of the Civil Judge, of the Settlement Officer and of the Consolidation Officer may be quashed because of two grounds, firstly, that the decision of the arbitrator was wrong in law and, secondly, that the matter could not be referred to the arbitrator as the dispute about the shares in the holdings did not fall within the purview of Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. As regards the first point whether the award was erroneous in law, we are not satisfied that it can be said in the present case that the award is on the face of-it erroneous. 4. As regards the first point whether the award was erroneous in law, we are not satisfied that it can be said in the present case that the award is on the face of-it erroneous. The arbitrator held that as the compromise decree was silent on the point of interests of the parties in the sir plots in dispute, the interests of the parties in the sir plots remained as they were before the compromise was effected and that as admittedly these shares were half and half the parties had a half and half share in the sir holding. It is well known that one co sharer my have more area under the sir than he owns as a proprietor or co-sharer. Since the compromise did not deal with the sir rights of the panics it cannot be said that the arbitrations decision was obviously wrong. 5. As regards the next point, u/s 10A a tenure-holder entitled to any holding jointly with one or more other tenure-holders may apply to the Consolidation Officer that his share in the holding be separately allotted to him. When such an application is made by any tenure holder the Consolidation Officer shall treat the tenure-holder to be separately entitled to a portion of the holding proportionate to his share therein and proceed accordingly. The rules made under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provide the procedure to be followed in cases of dispute as to the share of a tenure-holder in the holding upon an application u/s 10A. Rule 32(4) lays down that "any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer may, within fifteen days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) whose order shall, subject to the decision of the arbitration u/s 12 of the Act on a question of title, be final." The Consolidation Officer in this case, as already stated, decided that the share of the parties shall be in proportion to their share in the proprietary rights. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer under the provisions of Rule 32(4) quoted above. The Settlement Officer was of opinion that the question as to the extent of the shares of the parties raised a question of title and he referred the matter to the Civil Judge. 6. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer under the provisions of Rule 32(4) quoted above. The Settlement Officer was of opinion that the question as to the extent of the shares of the parties raised a question of title and he referred the matter to the Civil Judge. 6. The argument of the Petitioners is that the Settlement Officer was not entitled to do so because u/s 12 he could do so only when "the correctness or nature of an entry in the statement published u/s 11 or any omission therefrom" was in dispute. 7. In our opinion, reading Rule 32(4) along with Sections 10A and 12 of the Act the question as to the extend of a tenure-holder's share in the case of two or more joint tenure-holders relates to a question of title within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 12, because the entry being silent about the extent of the shares, this was a case of an "omission" from the entry within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 and fell within the purview of that section. The Settlement Officer, therefore, had jurisdiction to refer the question to the Civil Judge. 8. NO other point was urged. 9. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed with costs.