ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria dated 21-12-1972 in Revision No. 1004 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Vishwanath and others v. Chandra Bhaskar. 2. In the basic year both the parties were recorded over the disputed plots. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the share. According to the present petitioner he is entitled to ? share in the disputed plots whereas the contesting opposite parties are claiming share in the disputed plots. 3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 30th October. 1971 had accepted the claim of the present petitioner to the extent of ? share. The contesting opposite parties had preferred an appeal, but they could not succeed as is evident from the judgment of the appellate authority dated 9-3-1972. Thereafter the contesting opposite parties had preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation through his impugned judgment dated 21-12-1972. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has patently erred in holding the petitioners share as on the basis of Khewat entries. He has emphasised before me that the petitioner is entitled to l/3 share on the basis of the pedigree and the circumstances involved in the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and according to him the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on appraisal of evidence on record and according to Khewat entries the petitioner is entitled to share and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given him share, hence there is no occasion for any interference in the impugned judgment. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. This is a vexed question as to whether the shares of the parties in Sir and Khudkast land may be determined on the basis of pedigree or on the basis of khewat entries. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule. It always depends upon the circumstances and the facts involved in each case. This is a vexed question as to whether the shares of the parties in Sir and Khudkast land may be determined on the basis of pedigree or on the basis of khewat entries. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule. It always depends upon the circumstances and the facts involved in each case. In the present case I have a feeling that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has patently erred in determining the shares of the parties on the basis of Khewat entries. The Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority were right in holding the petitioners share as ? in the disputed plots in the circumstances of the present case. 7. It is not disputed before me that Sheo Barat, Param Sukh, Ram Barat and Mahendra were real brothers and the disputed plots were purchased in the name of Mahendra and he had separated long ago. In the basic years the names of the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties were recorded over the disputed plots. The only question to be determined is the shares of the petitioner mentioned as 1 pie and odd whereas the share of the contesting opposite parties is mentioned as 3 pies and odd. The aforesaid indication of shares may be relevant for determining the shares of the parties in proprietary rights. 8. It is well known that Sir and Khudkast rights are bundle of proprietary and cultivatory rights. In acquiring sir and khudkast rights cultivatory rights of a proprietor play an important role. It is a matter of common experience that in this State a co-proprietor may not have Sir and Khudkast rights at all in the zamindari property and he might be only entitled to a share in the land revenue, hence the determination of shares on the basis of Khewat entries in every case would not be a golden rule. It is quite possible that a co-proprietor may remain content with his share in land revenue and may not have cultivated land and hence he would not be in a position to acquire either khudkast or sir rights in the zamindari property. 9. It is quite possible that a co-proprietor may remain content with his share in land revenue and may not have cultivated land and hence he would not be in a position to acquire either khudkast or sir rights in the zamindari property. 9. Moreover, in the present case Mahendra one of the four brothers had already separated long back and when in the extract of 1359 Fasli Khewat indicates the share of the petitioner as and the share of the contesting opposite parties as , it is not clear what happened to the share of aforesaid Mahendra. All the four brothers being proprietors would have a share in the khewat. If the entries indicate that the petitioner had l/4 share and the contesting opposite parties had share, it is evident that Khewat entry does not represent the correct state of affairs. In this view of the matter I think that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has patently erred in determining the shares of the parties on the basis of Khewat entries. 10. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5810 of 1971 Banka Tewari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein the learned single Judge has accepted the khewat entries for determining the shares of the parties in sir and khudkast land. The learned single Judge has emphasised the value of long standing entries and has accepted the Khewat entries as basis for determining the shares of the parties. On facts the aforesaid case is distinguishable and the facts of the present case gives a clear clue that khewat entry does not represent the correct state of affairs, hence cannot be a guiding factor for determining the shares of the parties in sir and khudkast land. 11. The learned counsel for the .petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2425 of 1972 Jagannath Upadhya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow Camp at Varanasi, wherein another learned single Judge of this court has observed as below; - "..... It is a settled law that simply because a person may be a co-sharer in the Mahal or patti does not necessarily mean that he may also be a Sir or Khudkast holder. It is a settled law that simply because a person may be a co-sharer in the Mahal or patti does not necessarily mean that he may also be a Sir or Khudkast holder. It is also settled that the share in the Sir and Khudkast land of a person may not necessarily correspond with his share in the khewat. What would be the respective share of joint Sir or Khudkast holder has to be found on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. From the specification of shares made in the khewat, no presumption arises either way in regard to the respective shares of joint Sir or Khudkast holders. " 12. I fully agree with the above observations. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 5245 of 1972 connected with Civil Misc. Writ No. 6997 of 1972 (All) Kanhai Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation another learned single Judge of this court has observed that: "If one claims right as a co-khudkast holder merely being co-proprietor is not enough, it must further be established that the co-proprietor was also a co-sharer or a co-owner in khudkast right. It is then only that the benefit of constructive possession can be claimed." Similarly in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3848 of 1972; (1979 All LJ 649) Prabhu Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation it has been held that. "A proprietor cannot claim to be a co-bhumidhar or sir or khudkast holder unless he was in possession or held it as Sir or Khudkast on the date of vesting, a proprietor cannot be said to hold Sir or Khudkast belonging to another proprietor. To claim such rights he must be a cosharer in Sir and Khudkast land and not a co-sharer in a proprietary right only." 13. In the present case I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in determining the shares of the parties by placing reliance upon the khewat entry of 1359 Fasli, which does not represent the correct state of affairs. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not examined an important aspect of the matter as to what happened to the share of Mahendra in whose name the plots were originally purchased and at the time of his separation how the purchased plots were distributed. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not examined an important aspect of the matter as to what happened to the share of Mahendra in whose name the plots were originally purchased and at the time of his separation how the purchased plots were distributed. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation had taken into account this aspect of the matter he would not have relied upon the khewat extract for determining the shares of the parties in the present case. To determine the shares of the parties in Sir and Khudkast land, it is necessary that the pleadings of the parties and the evidence with regard to acquisition of cultivatory rights in the disputed land may be properly valued and then the shares should be determined. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not examined the claims of the parties from correct angle, his judgment deserves to be quashed. In the ends of justice he is directed to reexamine the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. 14. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the claim of the parties afresh in the light of the observations made above. 15. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.