K. C. AGARWAL, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) dated December 31, 1970. The dispute relates to plot No. 140 area 19 biswa 18 Dhur and 144 area 3 bigha 8 biswa 9 Dhur situate in village Kewara, Par-gana Mohammedabad, district Ghazipur. In the basis year the plots mentioned above were entered in the names of Badri, Jag Narnin, Jagar K;. lh, ISrij Narain and Ram Narain It is common ground that plot No. 144 was formerly Sir land of the ancestors of the petitioners and plot No. 140 was their fixed rate tenancy. Brijnath, the respon dent No. 4, filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act claiming himself the Bhumidhar of these plots. The rspondent No. 4 alleged that his father had planted groves on the plots in dispute with the permission of the zamindar, who were the ancestors of the petitioners, hence by virtue of planta tion of the groves, he was a grove holder entitled to the rights under Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioners contested the objection of the respondent No. 4 as serting that the groves were planted by their ancestor and the res pondent No. 4 had no concern with the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that registered agreement dated August 7, 1933 executed by the petitioners or their predecessors in favour of Shiva Nath, the father of the respondent No. 4, clearly showed that both the parties were co-grove holders and, therefore, both of them were entitled to be recorded as co-bhumidhars. Both the parties filed two separate appeals. The Settlement Officer (Con solidation) held that the petitioners were the sole Bhumidhar of plot No. 144, and the respondent No. 4 being the grove holder of plot No. 140, was its exclusive Bhumidhar. According to his finding the status of the respondent No. 4 with regard to plot No. 144 was only that of a licensee. Both the parties were again dissatisfied conse quently two revisions were filed against the aforesaid judgment. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 holding that he was not merely a licensee of plot No. 144 but its asami u|s. 21 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Both the parties were again dissatisfied conse quently two revisions were filed against the aforesaid judgment. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 holding that he was not merely a licensee of plot No. 144 but its asami u|s. 21 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The revision filed by the petitioners in respect of plot No. 140 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the present petition has been filed. I will "first take up the case of plot No. 140. As stated above, it is a common case of both the parties that the said plot was the Sir of the ancestors of the petitioners and a lease for planting grove over this plot was granted by them to Shiva Nath, the father of the respondent No. 4. This permission was granted on August 7, 1933, when the Agra Ten ancy Act, 1926 was still in operation. There is further no dispute be tween the parties that a grove was planted over this plot in pursu ance of the above transaction. The first question that needs deter mination is whether the character of the Sir land got extinguished on account of the permission granted by the zamindars. It is note worthy that the permission granted in favour of the father of the res pondent No. 4 was for planting trees. The predecessors of the peti tioner do not get themselves completely divested of the ownership of the plot. The rights given to Shiva Nath was limited in nature, Section 4 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 defines Sir. Section 7 of the said Act contained provision for extinction of Sir rights. There is nothing in this section which may show that the rights of a Sir holder gets extinguished on account of the permission granted to him to plant a grove. Section 196 of this Act defines a grove hol der, which includes a person. . . . to whom land has been let or grant ed by a landlord or a permanent tenure holder for the purpose of planting a grove. . . . Accordingly any person to whom the permission is granted to plant a grove becomes a grove holder. . . . to whom land has been let or grant ed by a landlord or a permanent tenure holder for the purpose of planting a grove. . . . Accordingly any person to whom the permission is granted to plant a grove becomes a grove holder. As a grove holder he acquires certain rights conferred upon him by the statute but there is nothing in the Act laying down that the rights of a Sir-hol der gets extinguished due to creation of a grove holders right on the Sir land. The above position was preserved and continued under the U. P. Tenancy. The provision of extinction of Sir rights is incorporated in Section 11 of this Act. It is practically on the same lines as the old Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. It is, therefore, possible under this Act as well to create a grove holders right on Sir land without affecting the character of the land as Sir. It is no doubt true that a grove holder is not the holder of a grove but also the holder of the grove-land and his holding comprises both the grove and the grove-land. But this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to extinguish the character of the Sir rights. As held in Har Saran Das v. Harbans Singh and others, A. I. R. 1930 All. 655 Sir land does not lose its character of Sir only by the plantation of a grove on it, nor could the land loose that character on any other ground. This posi tion which existed upto the repeal of the U. P. Tenancy Act, was recognised by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act. On the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate including land (cultivable or barren) grove land, forest etc. were abolished. But Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act settled certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators as Bhumidhars. The relvant part of Section 10 of the Act is as under: - . . . all lands: - (a) in possession if or deemed to be held by an intermediary as Sir, Khudkasht or an intermediarys grove. (c) held by a grove holder. The relvant part of Section 10 of the Act is as under: - . . . all lands: - (a) in possession if or deemed to be held by an intermediary as Sir, Khudkasht or an intermediarys grove. (c) held by a grove holder. The discussion of the above provision shows that a Sir holder as well as a grove holder, both become entitled to the rights of Bhumidhar under Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Legislature kept the two categories of persons in the same class. The submission of the learned counsel for the res pondent No. 4 that Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, creates conflicting rights is not acceptable to me. It is the duty of a court to reconcile the provision of a statute and to harmonize the same in order to give effect to the provision of law. Dealing with the above problem the Supreme Court observed in Raj Krishna Bose v. Binod Kanango, A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 202 that it is the duty of a court to avoid a head on clash and whenever it is possible to do so, to con strue provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonize. Dealing with the interpretation of sub-sections the Supreme Court observed in Madan Lal v. S. Changdeo Sugar Mills, A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1543 at page 1551 the sub sections must be read as parts of an integral whole and as being inter dependent, an attempt should be made in construing them to reconcile them if it is reasonably possible to do so, and to avoid repugn ancy. In Venkataraman Devara v. State of Madras, A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 255 at p. 268 Venkatarama Aiyer, J. emphasised the rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which can be reconciled with each other, effect should be given to both. That is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. This can be done in the instant case only by resolving that both of them became joint Bhumidhars. This view of mine is fully supported by an unreported decision in Chandi Singh v. Ghanshyam Singh, S. A. No. 2869 of 1957 decided on January 9, 1963. That is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. This can be done in the instant case only by resolving that both of them became joint Bhumidhars. This view of mine is fully supported by an unreported decision in Chandi Singh v. Ghanshyam Singh, S. A. No. 2869 of 1957 decided on January 9, 1963. In similar cir cumstances Srivastava, J. held the grove holder and Sir holder as joint Bhumidhars. Coming to plot No. 144 the position appears to be simple. The respondent No. 4s father had planted a grove over this plot as well with the permission of the predecessors of the petitioners. This plot was fixed rate tenancy of the petitioners. As a fixed rate tenant they could let out the same for planting the grove. This plot is recorded in the name of the respondent No. 4 in the years 1356 and 1359 Fasli, therefore, the respondent No. 4 being recorded as occupant on the date remediately preceding the date of vesting became Asami of the same under Section 21 (2), U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In fact from the judgment of the Deputy Director of (Consolidation), it appears that the counsel for the respondent No. 4 himself claimed the above status before him, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in this petition, did not seriously challenge it. He had to admit that the respondent No. 4 would be the Asami of plot No. 144, whereas his position would be that of Bhumi-dhar over this plot. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the judg ment of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and that of the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) are partly quashed and is held that the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 are joint Bhumidhars of plot No. 340, but the judgment of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) in res pect of plot No. 144 is maintained. No order as to costs. .