JUDGMENT R.S. Pathak, J. - In proceedings for correction of records under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act an objection was filed by the petitioners claiming certain plots in khata no. 2 as belonging exclusively to them. The claim was made on the basis of a family settlement. The Revenue records set out the names of particular co-tenants against the plots comprised in khata no. 2. None of them contested the claim of the petitioners except the 4th respondent Inderjit Singh. He appeared and asserted that he was a co-tenure holder and the claim by the petitioners could not be sustained by the settlement alleged by them. He urged that no effect had been given to the settlement and he was not a party to it. The Consolidation Officer accepted the case set up by the petitioners, and directed that all the names except those of the petitioners should be expunged. 2. An appeal was filed by Inderjit Singh before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and that appeal was dismissed. He then preferred a second appeal to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision according to law. Upon remand the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the private partition or family settlement could not be recognised and that it appears that no effect had been given to it. He directed that the entries in the record would remain intact as they stood before the order of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners aggrieved by this order proceeded in revision under Section 48. The Deputy Director of Consolidation who heard the revision application found that the petitioners had impleaded only Inderjit Singh and that they had not impleaded all the co-tenure holders whose names found place in the revenue records. He held that all were necessary parties. He rejected the revision application as not maintainable. 3. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for certiorari against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision application and the order of the Settlement Officer allowing the appeal of Inderjit Singh. The connected writ petition for certiorari has been filed by respondent no. 5, Amarjit Singh, who had also filed a revision application under Section 48 against the order of the Settlement Officer and whose revision application had also on the same ground been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. The connected writ petition for certiorari has been filed by respondent no. 5, Amarjit Singh, who had also filed a revision application under Section 48 against the order of the Settlement Officer and whose revision application had also on the same ground been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was a dispute only between the petitioners and Inderjit Singh and, therefore, it was not necessary to implead all the co-tenure holders and in any event if the Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the opinion that they were necessary parties and should be impleaded a duty lay upon him under Section 48 to implead them. It is not possible to accept the contention. It is not disputed that khata no. 2 which comprised of a number of plots recorded those plots in the names of a number of persons. Initially it is true that the dispute existed merely between the petitioners and Inderjit Singh. But when considering the question whether all the co-tenure holders were liable to be impleaded in the revision application or only Inderjit Singh, regard must be had to the circumstance that the petitioners claim the plots exclusively for themselves. This necessarily implied that the other co-tenure holders had no title to those plots. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while allowing the appeal of Inderjit Singh directed that the entries in the revenue records should remain intact as they existed before the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The order of the Settlement Officer recognised certain rights in those co-tenure holders in respect of the plots comprised in the khata. It was against this order that the revision application was filed by the petitioner. The decision of the revision application necessarily involved a decision as to the rights of all the co-tenure holders. In that view of the matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was patently right in holding that all were necessary parties to the revision application. The mere circumstance that Inderjit Singh alone contested the claim of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer cannot derogate from the effect of the subsequent order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that all the co-tenure holders and not Inderjit Singh alone were interested in the plots comprised in the khata. The mere circumstance that Inderjit Singh alone contested the claim of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer cannot derogate from the effect of the subsequent order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that all the co-tenure holders and not Inderjit Singh alone were interested in the plots comprised in the khata. Accordingly, it is not possible to hold that there is any error in the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that in order to maintain the revision application the petitioners should have impleaded the several tenure holders. 5. The contention of the petitioners that when the Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that all the co-tenure holders were necessary parties it was incumbent upon him to implead them is a contention which must be rejected. The revision application was filed by the petitioner. He invoked the jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was not bound to implead such persons as he considered necessary parties for the decision of the case. There is nothing in Section 48 which requires him to do so. Nothing in the provision imposes such duty upon him. 6. So far as the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is concerned, as I have pointed above, it directs that the entries of the records will remain intact. In order that the petitioners should assail the order of the Settlement Officer it was necessary for them to implead all those whose names were recorded in the revenue papers. That has not been done. In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before me on the merits of the order of the Settlement Officer. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed with costs.