JUDGMENT : U.C. SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision application filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who allowed the appeal filed by the opposite parties and held that the name of Kandhai will also be entered as bhumidhar over one plot and will also get share in the same. 2. The basic year entry was in favour of Petitioner No. 1 alone who, according to his case was recorded in the revenue papers in representative capacity for and on behalf of his brother as the tenancy rights devolved on him after the death of his father. Opposite party Kandhai on the one hand who was son of Sarju own brother of Ram Das father of Petitioner and Prabhu and others father of Sukkha the third brother of Ram Das claimed co-tenancy rights along with the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioners who had no dispute among themselves contested the claim of Kandhai for 1/3 share and of three daughters of deceased Sukkha for the remaining 2/3 share. In support of his claim the parties tendered their oral and documentary evidence before the Consolidation Officer to whom the Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter for deciding the same. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections filed by the Petitioners and others and directed that the name of the Petitioners be entered. Kandhai filed an appeal and the Settlement Officer Consolidation partly allowed the appeal. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Petitioner No. 1 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and as according to him the other Petitioners were not available, they were impleaded as opposite parties in the revision application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision application. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Sri Hargur Charan learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation suffer from apparent error of law and because they have relied upon the statements of the witnesses examined by the opposite parties who were uncross-examined. Ram Anjor being party to the proceedings, there was no question of considering his own statement given in another suit and the statement given in that suit was admissible in evidence. Ram Anjor being party to the proceedings, there was no question of considering his own statement given in another suit and the statement given in that suit was admissible in evidence. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel has got no force. It was then contended by the learned Counsel that rights were given to Kandhai merely on the ground that there were divisions of the plots in dispute although there was no such evidence. The divisions were not sufficient to confer co-tenancy rights. A perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that they after taking into consideration the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that Kandhai had succeeded in proving the co-tenancy rights over the plots on which such rights had been given to him and that he was also in possession. The finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was referred to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the said finding being based on appraisal of evidence no interference is possible. 4. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Counsel that as Ram Das acquired tenancy rights in individual capacity after the date of vesting, he alone was to be deemed to be Adhivasi and Sirdar of the land in suit and there was no question of confirmation of co-tenancy rights on any other member of the family. The learned Counsel in this connection made reference to khatauni of 1362 F. in which Ram Das was entered as Adhivasi and also for 1373 F. in which his name was entered as Adhivasi over plot No. 508. It: could not be denied that before Ram Das, the tenant of the plot in dispute was his father Baljor who had three sons Ram Das, Sarju and Sukkha. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that Khata No. 127 was acquired from the nucleus of a joint Hindu family property and the said Khata was acquired by Ram Das meaning thereby that the acquisition was made by himself and his brothers and his name was entered in the representative capacity and because he was entered in possession before abolition of Zamindari, thereafter Sirdari rights accrued in his favour only and could not have accrued in favour of any other person. 5. 5. It was next contended that Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act makes it cleat that it is only a person who is recorded to be occupant alone will get rights and in 1359 F. alone will get hereditary rights and other members of the family are not entitled to the said right. 6. It is true that personal law is not applicable in these matters but the provisions of Hindu law as such are not applicable in the matter of joint Hindu family tenancy and the rights which accrued to members of joint Hindu family even in respect of the tenancy land cannot be overlooked, if an entry to the effect, a Sirdari right can be acquired by members of a joint Hindu family notwithstanding the fact that the same may enter in the name of one person either as Karta or in a representative capacity. Even in pre-abolition period when Zamindar used to be owner of the land in dispute the members of the joint Hindu family were or could be the tenant of land notwithstanding the order to the effect that entry was in the name of one person. In a Division Bench of this Court in Acharji Ahir v. Harai Ahir 1930 A.L.J. 822 which was a case of tenancy acquired while family was joint it was held that the ordinary rule of Hindu law, that properties acquired while the family was joint and with the help of the ancestral or joint family property should be recorded as joint family property, and that the burden of proof that it was self acquired property of a single member should be on that member applies to a case where the property in question is a tenancy. 7. The Supreme Court of India in Kailash Rai Vs. Jai Jai Ram and Others, AIR 1973 SC 893 with reference to Section 18 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act held that bhumidhari rights could be acquired by all the members of the joint Hindu family even though the land was recorded in the name of one person and even an unrecorded co-tenant were entitled to this-right notwithstanding the fact that they were not in actual possession as they would be deemed in constructive possession. The said case was of Bhumidhari rights and not a Sirdari rights and was with reference to rights of those who were under-proprietors before the abolition of zamindari and the share was to be determined accordingly. But the ratio of the said case will be applicable to the case of adhivasi and sirdari rights also. 8. Thus the entry of Adhivasi and Sirdari etc. can accrue in favour of members of joint family and notwithstanding the entry in the name of one person will be deemed in representative capacity for and on behalf of the members of the joint family. It cannot be said that this principle of Hindu law will not apply in the case of Adhivasi or Sirdari rights. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act nowhere has made any encroachment upon the Hindu law and nothing like that can be spread out from the language of Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms Act. In this view the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have not committed any error of law what to say a manifest error of law. 9. The writ petition has got no force and is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.