JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17-9-1971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, Camp at Farrukhabad in proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. 2. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 namely Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal were co-tenants along-with petitioners Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand. The opposite party no. 8, Guljari Lal was also co-tenant along with the petitioners and opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 of plot nos. 251/1, 251/3. 254/1, 223, 80, 81, 217, 218, 220, 221, 224 and 225. All the aforesaid persons, who were co-tenants, were ordered to be ejected under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act in a suit filed by the then landlord by a decree dated 25th August, 1942 and they were dispossessed in execution of the said decree made on 2nd June, 1943. 3. After the ejectment, the then landlord had let out plot nos. 80, 81, 217, 218, and 220 to outsiders Hirdai Ram, Puttu Lal and Vidya Dhar, the opposite parties nos. 5 to 7 and their names were recorded as tenant thereof. These plots are recorded in their names in the basic year Khatauni on Khata no. 273. 4. The landlord is said to have let out plot nos. 221,224 and 225 to Guljari Lal, the opposite party no. 6, who was one of the co-tenants ejected from the aforesaid 12 plots in execution of the decree under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act referred to above. These plots are recorded in the name of Guljari Lal in the basic Year Khatauni on Khata no. 135. 5. The landlord is said to have also let out plot nos. 251/1, 251/3, 254/1 and 223 to the petitioners Sarnam Singh and Brahma Nand. The plots are recorded in the name of the petitioners as Sirdar tenant in the basic year Khatauni on Khata no. 261. In the present writ petition we are concerned with these plots. 6. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 namely Babu Ram, Munshi Lal, and Kanauji Lal had filed application for reinstatement under the provisions of section 27 of the U.P. Act no. 261. In the present writ petition we are concerned with these plots. 6. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 namely Babu Ram, Munshi Lal, and Kanauji Lal had filed application for reinstatement under the provisions of section 27 of the U.P. Act no. X of 1947 within limitation prescribed therein in respect of the aforesaid 12 plots from which they were ejected along with other said co-tenants. The opposite parties nos. 4 to 6 had claimed in the aforesaid application their reinstatement on the aforesaid 12 plots under section 27 of the said Act. The petitioners also claimed to have applied for their reinstatement along with the opposite parties nos 2 to 4 and 8. This fact is, however, denied on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 who claimed to have alone applied for their reinstatement under section 27 of the Act. The said application for reinstatement was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue, however, by its order dated 2nd January, 1961 remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh on merits. Against this order a writ petition wag filed in this. Court which abated under section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the village was brought under the operation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereupon, opposite party nos. 2 to 4 namely Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal alone filed objection under section 9-A (2) of the said Act and prayed that their names be recorded as Sirdar over the aforesaid 12 plots which were recorded in the names of the petitioners on Khata no. 261 and in the names of opposite parties nos. 5 to 7 on Khata no. 273 and in the name of Guljari Lal, opposite party no. 8 on Khata no. 135 in the basic year Khatauni. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 claimed Sirdari right in the aforesaid plots in dispute stating that within limitation they had applied for their reinstatement under the provisions of section 17 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 which had abated. They further claimed to.be entitled for reinstatement over the land in dispute from which they were ejected by the decree dated 25th August, 1942 passed in a suit under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. X of 1947 which had abated. They further claimed to.be entitled for reinstatement over the land in dispute from which they were ejected by the decree dated 25th August, 1942 passed in a suit under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. They claimed to have acquired Sirdari rights under Section 19 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R, Act and prayed that their names be ordered to be recorded as such on the land of the aforesaid disputed holdings and that the names of petitioners as well as opposite parties nos. 5 to 8 be expunged. 7. The case was contested by the petitioners and they contended that they were alone tenure-holders of the land recorded in their names on Khata no. 261 of the basic year Khatauni. They further asserted that opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to be re-instated over the plots in question nor they are entitled to be declared as Sirdar tenant as the benefit of section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 cannot be given to them as the petitioners have acquired Sirdari right under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and are not liable to ejectment at the instance of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4. They also asserted that the benefit section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 was not available to the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 against the Petitioners in respect of the land in dispute over which they have acquired Sirdari rights under the provisions of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. They further pleaded that they being in possession in the year 1356-F and 1359-F were rightly recorded as tenants thereof. The opposite parties nos. 5 to 8 also contested the case of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 on similar grounds They further pleaded that after ejectment of the tenants under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, the landlord had let out the land in question to them on 6-9-1943 and ever since then they are in possession as tenant thereof. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to get possession over the land in dispute which is rightly recorded in their names on Khata nos. 273 and 135. 8. The Consolidation Officer after recording the evidence of the parties rejected the objection filed by opposite parties nos. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to get possession over the land in dispute which is rightly recorded in their names on Khata nos. 273 and 135. 8. The Consolidation Officer after recording the evidence of the parties rejected the objection filed by opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 20th Sept., 1970 holding that since no fraud was practised by the landlord in obtaining the decree for ejectment under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, as such the objectors were not entitled to the benefit of section 27 U.P. Act no. X of 1947. He further held that the recorded tenants were in possession over the land in dispute both in 1356-F and 1359-F hence they became Sirdars automatically under section 19 of U.P.Z. and L.R. Act. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 feeling aggrieved, by the said order filed appeal which was rejected by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 18-5-1971. Thereupon a revision was filed by them which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17-9-1971 by holding that opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 27 of the said Act and they are entitled to be reinstated on all the aforesaid plots in dispute. It was further ordered that petitioners as well as the opposite parties nos. 5 to 8 would hold the land in their possession only for a period of three years from the date of the order passed by him as sub-tenant thereof and opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 would be entitled to get possession of the land in dispute recorded in the names of the petitioners as well as opposite parties nos. 5 to 8 on the expiry of the said period. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand have filed the present writ petition. The opposite parties nos. 5 to 7 also preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8688 of 1971 against the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of land of Khata no. 273 which was recorded in their names in the basic year Khatauni. The opposite party no. 8 Guljari Lal also preferred separate writ petition no. 8688 of 1971 against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the land of Khata no. 273 which was recorded in their names in the basic year Khatauni. The opposite party no. 8 Guljari Lal also preferred separate writ petition no. 8688 of 1971 against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the land of Khata no. 135, which was recorded in his name in the basic year Khatauni. Both these writ petitions have been dealt with and decided separately. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.N.L. Katiyar contended that the petitioners Sarnam Singh and Brahma Nand had also applied for their reinstatement along with opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 under section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 and as such the petitioners are entitled to be declared as co-sirdar tenant in respect of the land of three disputed holdings namely Khata no. 135, 273 and 261. He further contended that it is not disputed that the petitioners were also ejected from all the aforesaid plots in question on the basis of the decree dated 25th August, 1942 which was passed against them as well as against the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and 8, who were co-tenants and as such if the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 are to be reinstated over the land in disputed holdings, the petitioners would also be entitled to be reinstated. In reply to it, the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 contended that neither the petitioners nor Guljari Lal had applied for their reinstatement along with the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 who, according to him, had alone applied for reinstatement over the land of the disputed holdings, and in support of it the learned counsel referred to the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to that effect. Learned counsel further urged that the benefit of section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 would alone be available to those co-tenants who had applied for their reinstatement under section 27 of the U.P. Act no. X of 1947. The other co-tenants who were ejected would not be entitled to the benefit of the said provisions and would not be entitled to reinstatement along with the persons who had applied for the reinstatement under section 27 of the said Act. X of 1947. The other co-tenants who were ejected would not be entitled to the benefit of the said provisions and would not be entitled to reinstatement along with the persons who had applied for the reinstatement under section 27 of the said Act. I have carefully considered the aforesaid arguments and I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 is correct and there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded, after considering the evidence on record, a finding to the effect that out of all the tenants ejected only, the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 namely Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal had applied for reinstatement and he accordingly declared them to be the Sirdar of the land in dispute under the provisions of section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 and further ordered that the persons recorded as sirdar in the basic year Khatauni of the aforesaid three holdings would be entitled to retain the possession upto three years from the date of his order and during this period they would be recorded as asamis of the land which is recorded in their names in the basic year respectively. The Consolidation Officer has also observed in his order that all the ejected persons were not plaintiffs under section 27 of Act no. X of 1947. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the observations made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his order to the effect that after the enforcement of Act no. X of 1947 Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal along with Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand had applied for reinstatement under section 27 of U.P. Act no. X of 1947 and on this basis the learned counsel urged that contrary finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is per se wrong and it should not be accepted to be a correct finding on the said point. I have perused the impugned orders by the Consolidation authorities very carefully. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had specifically dealt with the said question whether the application for reinstatement was filed by all the ejected co-tenants or only opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and he after considering the material on record held that opposite parties nos. I have perused the impugned orders by the Consolidation authorities very carefully. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had specifically dealt with the said question whether the application for reinstatement was filed by all the ejected co-tenants or only opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and he after considering the material on record held that opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 alone had applied for reinstatement and as such they alone were entitled to the benefit of section 27 of Act no. X of 1947. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had not dealt with question whether the petitioners and opposite party no. 8 had or had not applied for their reinstatement along with opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and they would be entitled to be reinstated over the land in question or not and he had rejected the appeal filed by the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 merely on the ground that the benefit of section 27 of U.P. Act no. X to 1947 would not be available to the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 after enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and for that he placed reliance upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Kanchan Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1967 R.D. page 220. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside in special appeal no. 367 of 1967 which was referred and relied on by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while holding that the benefit of section 27 of U.P. Act, no. X of 1947 could be given to the ejected tenants and they would be entitled to Sirdari right under section 19 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The settlement Officer (Consolidation) had not considered the question whether the petitioners and opposite party no. 8 had also applied along with opposite party no. 2 to 4 for their reinstatement. He had casually made aforesaid observation in his judgment regarding the filing of application for reinstatement by all the ejected tenants. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 alone applied for reinstatement over the land of the disputed holdings. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 alone applied for reinstatement over the land of the disputed holdings. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on this question of fact cannot be challenged in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has not been shown to be wrong or perverse especially when the petitioners have not averred in the writ petition that they had also applied for reinstatement along with the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4. The petitioners have also not brought any material on record to that effect and as such they cannot successfully urge that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the said point is wrong. The petitioners had also not filed any objection under section 9-A(2) of the said Act before the consolidation authorities in respect of the land of Khata no. 273 which was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of the opposite parties nos. 5 to 7 and in respect of the land of Khata no. 135 which was recorded in the name of opposite party no. 8. The petitioner did not claim any right in respect of that which they should have done, if they were entitled to be reinstated on the said land along with the opposite parties nos, 2 to 4. Petitioners, therefore, cannot be permitted to urge for the first time in the writ petition that they are also entitled to be reinstated on the land of nos. 273 and 135 along with the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 merely on the aforesaid alleged grounds that they had applied for reinstatement over the said land along with opposite parties nos. 2 to 4. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that since no objection was filed by the petitioners with regard to the land of the aforesaid holdings of Khata nos. 273 and 135 claiming co-tenancy right along with opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge and claim for the first time in the writ petition for co-tenancy right in the said holdings on the said grounds even if it be true. 10. 273 and 135 claiming co-tenancy right along with opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge and claim for the first time in the writ petition for co-tenancy right in the said holdings on the said grounds even if it be true. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner's next contended that in view of the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of the Consolidation to the effect that only opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 had applied for their reinstatement under section 27 of the U.P. Act No. X of 1947, the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 cannot be held to be Sirdar tenant and entitled to the reinstatement as all the ejected co-tenants are said to have not joined in the application under section 27 of the said Act for their reinstatement. He further urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 is untenable in law as the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 alone are not entitled to the benefit of section 27 of the said Act on account of the said infirmity. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The relevant section 27 of the said Act reads as under. "27. Reinstatement of certain ejected tenants-(1) If, on or after the first day of January, 1940, any person was ejected from his holding or any part thereof: (a) under section 165 of the said Act for the nonpayment of any amount not exceeding one fourth of his annual rent after taking into account the payment, if any, made by him outside the court, provided that such payment is supported by a receipt. or (b) under section 171 of the said Act, otherwise than on the ground of an illegal transfer by way of sale or gift. or (b) under section 171 of the said Act, otherwise than on the ground of an illegal transfer by way of sale or gift. or (c) under section 180 of the said Act notwithstanding his having been recorded as an occupant after the first day of January, 1938 in a record revised under Chapter IV of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 or corrected by an officer specially appointed by Government for the correction of annual registers in any tract, he may apply, within six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, to the Court, which passed the decree for his ejectment for reinstatement in each holding or part thereof as the case may be : Provided that if such holding or part thereof was subject to a mortgage on the date of ejectment under 171 of the said Act, the mortgagor and not the mortgagee shall be entitled to apply for reinstatement under this subsection." 11. The words "any persons" in this section has been deliberately used by the legislature and the Court would not be justified in restricting its meaning. Thus the few out of many tenants who were ejected can apply for their reinstatement under section 27 of the Act no. X of 1947 without impleading the rest even as a defendant because the right of reinstatement could be exercised by any person, as was provided in the aforesaid section. Under section 27 in sub-clause (3) the reinstatement order is to be passed in favour 01 the person making the application and not in favour of those who have not joined in the application. Where a number of co-tenants were ejected under section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and some of co-tenants did not apply for reinstatement under section 27, of U.P. Act no. X of 1947, the order for reinstatement could be passed only in favour of the plaintiffs who bad applied for reinstatement and not in favour of the other co-tenants who had not joined in the application. The ejected co-tenants who had not joined in the application for reinstatement, cannot claim their interest in the land to have revived upon the grant of relief to those persons who had sought their reinstatement under the said provisions. Their interest in the land had extinguished by their ejectment. The ejected co-tenants who had not joined in the application for reinstatement, cannot claim their interest in the land to have revived upon the grant of relief to those persons who had sought their reinstatement under the said provisions. Their interest in the land had extinguished by their ejectment. The statutory right for reinstatement provided under section 27 would be available to the ejected tenants who had applied for their reinstatement seeking the benefit of section 27 of the said Act. Under sub-section (3) of section 27 a notice is required to be issued to the landlord and to the tenants in possession of the holdings when any person applied under sub-section (1) of section 27 for his reinstatement. In the absence of any provision to that effect, it cannot be Laid down that a notice is to be issued also to the co-tenants who were ejected and who had not joined the application. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that all the co-tenants who were ejected, were either unnecessary parties or that without their holding as applicants, the application would not be maintainable. Since it has not been provided under, sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Act that all the co-tenants should join in the application for reinstatement, and use of the word "any person" clearly indicates that any of the ejected persons can apply for reinstatement and as such I am of the view that section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act would be no bar to the reinstatement of the applicants and the application of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 cannot be said to be defective and not maintainable. In my opinion the decision of the Board of Revenue in Ram Surat Mishra v. Ram Lagan Tewari, 1958 R.D. 15 lays down the correct law on the subject which was referred by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that some plots of the holdings from which the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were ejected are exchanged for other plots during consolidation operations in the form of the chak in respect of the land which was within the consolidation operations. He thus urged that the opposite parties nos. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that some plots of the holdings from which the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were ejected are exchanged for other plots during consolidation operations in the form of the chak in respect of the land which was within the consolidation operations. He thus urged that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 who had applied for restoration of possession under section 27 of the said Act would not be entitled to get back possession over the substituted plots, hence the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 cannot be declared to be sirdar tenant nor they would be entitled to their reinstatement. 1 am unable to agree with this contention. The word `such holdings' used in section 27 would include the substituted plots exchanged during the consolidation operation in the statement of proposals as against the original plots in question. In this view of the matter, opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 have been rightly declared as Sirdar tenants of the land in the disputed holdings and they would be entitled to get possession over those plots which are outside the consolidation scheme and also over the substituted, plots which have been allotted in the' chaks in statement of proposals during proceedings of allotment of chaks. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the end, contended that since the petitioners become Sirdars tenants under section 19 as well as under section 240-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as such opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 cannot be delcared to be Sirdar tenants and they are not entitled to get possession over the land in dispute which is recorded in the names of the petitioners on Khata no. 261. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel as well. In Gopal Narain and another v. Kanchan Lal and others, Special appeal no. 367 of 1967 decided on 23-4-1971 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held. "It is the common case of the parties that the application u/s. 27 of the U.P. Act no. X of 1947 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The objectors could, therefore, get the same relief from the consolidation authorities u/s 27 of U.P. Act no X of 1947. A proceeding u/s 27 is like a suit u/s 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. X of 1947 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The objectors could, therefore, get the same relief from the consolidation authorities u/s 27 of U.P. Act no X of 1947. A proceeding u/s 27 is like a suit u/s 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The objectors were tenants at the time when the surrender was made. If they could succeed in establishing that the surrender by them was obtained as a result of coercion, they could certainly be reinstated over the plots in question. It is true that the rights could accrue to the objectors only on reinstatement, in view of section 27 (5) of U.P. Act no. X of 1947. But if the objectors were entitled to be reinstated, they could be deemed to be tenants and consequently they could be entitled to be declared as Sirdar under section 19 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act Section 19 provided thus :- "All land, held or deemed to have been held on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person as:- I. ............iii....... iv. a hereditary tenant, v. ix................... "shall.......be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such person who shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled except as provided in sub-section 2 of section 18, to take or retain possession as a Sirdar thereof." "Similarly, section 20 of the Act also confers rights not only on tenants of Sir but on persons deemed to be tenants of Sir. It is, therefore, clear that the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act confers the right of a tenure holder not only on the person who is in possession as a tenant but also on one who is entitled to get possession as a tenant. The objectors were certainly entitled to bring their case within the four corners of section 27 (2) of U.P. Act no. X 1947." 14. As already mentioned above the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 had applied for their reinstatement under section 27(1) of the said Act within six months from the date of commencement of U.P. Act No. X of 1947 it is not disputed that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and their contents were ejected under section 171 of U.P. Tenancy Act vide decrees dated 2nd June 1943. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 and their contents were ejected under section 171 of U.P. Tenancy Act vide decrees dated 2nd June 1943. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were, therefore, entitled to get benefit of section 27 of the said Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after taking into consideration the evidence on record of the case, has held that the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 had also applied for their reinstatement. In view of this finding 1 am of opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed no error in holding the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 to be Sirdar tenants of the land of the disputed holdings. The petitioners, who were let out the land in question after the ejectment, are entitled to retain the possession of the same for a period of three years from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as held by him and I do not find any error of law, fact or jurisdiction in the said finding. 15. In the result, the writ petition fails 'and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.