JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-5-1969 passed by Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, I, Etawah in Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1968. 2. It is undisputed that 12 Tari trees stand on plot no. 79, which was newly constructed in consolidation proceedings. The Gram Sabha of the village in suit i. e. appellant No. 2 allowed appellant No. 1 to extract Taris in the year in suit. The respondent filed suit for damages on the ground that she was owner of the trees. The contention of the appellants was that in consolidation proceedings plot No. 79 was not allotted to the respondent and, therefore, she was not entitled to get damages. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that she was not paid any compensation for the trees and, therefore, she was not divested of her rights in the trees. The contention of the appellants found favour with the trial court which dismissed the suit. But the contention of the respondent found favour with the lower appellate court and, therefore, the lower appellate court decreed the respondents suit. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per tree was allowed by the lower appellate court. 3. Parties counsel have been heard. 4. Khasra of 1373 Fasli (Ex. 10) shows that no person was mentioned as tenure holder of new plot No. 79. This plot was recorded as new Parti. Khasra of 1372 Fasli (Ex. 11) shows the same. It is thus clear that during consolidation proceedings this plot was not allotted to any tenure holder. Khasra (Ex. 9) indicates the formation of new plot No. 79. 5. As plot No. 79 was recorded as new Parti its land ordinarily vested in the Gram Samaj, but this does not mean that the Gram Samaj became its tenure holder. Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act lays down that the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall send the statements to the tenure holders which would inter alia show valuation of trees. Section 19 (1) lays down that a consolidation scheme shall fulfil the following conditions: (c) the compensation determined under the provisions of this Act, or the rule framed thereunder, is awarded - (1) to the tenure holder (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure holder. 6. Section 19 (1) lays down that a consolidation scheme shall fulfil the following conditions: (c) the compensation determined under the provisions of this Act, or the rule framed thereunder, is awarded - (1) to the tenure holder (i) for trees, wells and other improvements, originally held by him and allotted to another tenure holder. 6. In this connection reference may be made to Sections 24 (2) and 29A. These two sections lie in Chap. IV captioned "Enforcement of the Scheme." Section 24 (2) lays down that on and from the date of obtaining possession every tenure holder getting trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots allotted to him in pursuance of the enforcement of the final consolidation scheme shall be liable for the payment of and pay to the former tenure holder thereof, compensation for the trees, wells and other improvements, allotted to him, to be determinated in the manner hereinbefore provided. Sec. 29-A indicates the mode of recovery of compensation. 7. It shall be noticed from the above provisions that a tenure holder in whose holding the trees stood is entitled to get compensation for the trees determined in accordance with the Act from the tenure holder to whom his holding is allotted in the consolidation scheme. 8. In the present case, there is absolutely nothing on the record to indicate that plot No. 79 was allotted to another tenure holder. Its necessary consequence is that the provisions of Sections 9, 19 24 and 29 indicated above do not come into operation. It follows from this that the ownership of the respondent continued and was not divested simply because the respondent was not shown as the tenure holder of plot No. 79 in consolidation proceedings. It has been indicated above that plot No. 79 was mentioned as new Parti and, therefore, the land of this plot vested in the Gram Samaj. But Gram Samaj, on this account, does not become tenure holder of this plot. Expression "tenure holder" has been defined in Section 3 (11) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This definition envisages a Bhumidhar or Sird? and Asami, a Government lessee/grantee or a co-operative farming society. It does not include gram samaj. 9. But Gram Samaj, on this account, does not become tenure holder of this plot. Expression "tenure holder" has been defined in Section 3 (11) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This definition envisages a Bhumidhar or Sird? and Asami, a Government lessee/grantee or a co-operative farming society. It does not include gram samaj. 9. In view of the legal provisions indicated above the lower appellate court has taken a right view in respect of the rights of the respondent in the tree and, therefore, there is no substance in this appeal. 10. Appeal is dismissed with costs to the contesting respondent.