JUDGMENT Gulati, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The dispute relates to grove plot No. 290. It is alleged the this grove was planted by one Wajid Ali over plot Nos. 429, 431 and 435 which later came to be comprised in plot No. 290. After the death of Wajid Ali his successors transferred separately their shares in the grove to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under three different sale deeds. It is also alleged that by mistake the name of Smt. Kareema Bibi was also entered along with the petitioners over the grove in dispute. During the consolidation proceedings she claimed ?th share in it. Her claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter she preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who allowed the same on February 29, 1958. The petitioners then went up in revision, but did not succeed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Smt. Kareema Bibi had ?th share in the proprietary and un-derproprietary interest, but she had no interest whatsoever in the grove which was planted by Wajid Ali between 1334 and 1348 Fasli. 4. It appears that the plots over which the grove stands along with some other land was the subject matter of a mortgage. Smt. Kareema Bibi applied in the year 1941 under Section 12 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The matter was ultimately compromised on April 8, 1942. The mortgage was redeemed in favour of Smt. Kareema Bibi in respect of plot Nos. 429, 431 and 435. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon this compromise to hold that Kareema Bibi became entitled to the ?th share in the grove. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error in doing so. He has taken me through the compromise application. It contains reference to plot Nos. 429, 431. and 435 which later on came to be numbered as 290 over which the grove stands. But there is no reference to the grove holder's right in the compromise. He has taken me through the compromise application. It contains reference to plot Nos. 429, 431. and 435 which later on came to be numbered as 290 over which the grove stands. But there is no reference to the grove holder's right in the compromise. As a result of the compromise the proprietary interest, no doubt, passed to Smt. Kareema Bibi, but it cannot be said that the grove holder's right which originally vested in Wajid Ali also passed to her or that there was any compromise with respect to that right. The Dakhalnama based on the compromise upon which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also relied also does not mention any grove-holder's right. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has omitted to consider that even if Kareema Bibi became the proprietor of the plots in dispute, yet she could not ipso facto become the proprietor or tenure-holder of the grove which was planted by Wajid Ali and which came to be sold to the petitioners. Wajid Ali was the tenure-holder and he planted the grove. He thus became the grove-holder under Section 225 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. His rights could not be the subject matter of any compromise since there was no dispute about it. The documents upon which the reliance has been placed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation do not at all show that there was any compromise in respect of the grove. In the circumstances the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is clearly and manifestly erroneous. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated January 15, 1970, is quashed. He shall, however, restore the revision petition to its original number and shall decide it afresh in accordance with the law and the observations contained herein after giving notice to the parties. 6. As no one appears on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.