JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to plot no. 711/1 area 0.30 acres situate in village Jhansi, Pargana Dhoos, Tahsil Chandauli, District Varanasi, lids plot was recorded in the basic year Khatauni as Banjar. The petitioners filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming that they were zamindar's in pre-vesting period and the land in dispute was their proprietary grove hence they became Bhumidhar after the date of vesting and their names are liable to be recorded as Bhumidhars over the such land. Respondent no. 4 vishwanath also filed an objection clamming that the land in dispute was above of his predecessors-in-interest along with the predecessors of opposite party no. 6 Kumar. He further alleged that Kumar had sold his half share in it through sale deed in his favour and as such he has become sole owner and is liable to be recorded as Bhumidhar on the said plot. No claim was set up by Kumar, opposite party no. 6. 3. The Consolidation Officer, after taking the evidence of the parties, held that the land in dispute was Banjar and was recorded as Banjar and rasta since prior to abolition of zamindari and as such it could not be recorded in the name of the petitioners nor in the name of opposite party no. 4. Both the objections were, therefore, rejected by order dated 16th November 1970. The petitioners as well as opposite party no. 4 preferred separate appeals against the said order, which to were rejected by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 17th April 1971 and the order pawed by the Consolidation Officer was maintained. It was observed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the ownership of the stray trees which are situated on the plot in dispute will continue to vest in the person who is owner thereof although he may have no sale from Sabha. The question of ownership of the stray trees situate on the land in dispute was, therefore, not decided. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners as well as opposite party no. 4 filed revisions which too were dismissed on 10th August 1971. Opposite party no. The question of ownership of the stray trees situate on the land in dispute was, therefore, not decided. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners as well as opposite party no. 4 filed revisions which too were dismissed on 10th August 1971. Opposite party no. 4 did not challenge this order any further and the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners alone. Petitioner no. 1 Sheikh Lal Mohammad has died and was substituted by his sons by courts order dated 26th April 1982. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the land in dispute was recorded as a proprietary grove under class 14(4) of the Lands Records Manual in the Khatauni of 1342F and 1351F and as such the petitioners be held to be Bhumidhars of the said proprietary grove. He further contended that after 1352F the entry in the revenue record appears to have been omitted without any order having been passed to that effect. He further contended that the trees situate on the land in dispute were planted by the petitioners and the consolidation authorities committed an error in not determining the ownership of the trees situate thereon. 5. In reply learned counsel for respondent no. 5 contended to the effect that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they were the proprietors of the land in dispute and this being a question of fact cannot be permitted to be canvassed in the writ petition as the findings on the said question of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further contended that so far as the question of ownership of stray trees is concerned the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to determine the question of title raised by the parties with regard to the trees in question. He further contended that since the land in dispute was not grove on the date of vesting and as such Bhumidhari rights could not accrue in favour of the petitioners even if they would have been able to prove that, they were proprietors of the land in question. 6. I have very carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have very carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I, however, find no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), after taking into consideration the relevant revenue record "entries, has come to the conclusion that the land in dispute had ceased to be grove in view of the entries in khasra of 1356F where in the plot in question was recorded as Banjar. He has further held that even if the land was a proprietor's grove there was no evidence on the record to show that Lal Mohd., and Fateh Mohd., were the sole proprietors of this khata khewat and merely on the basis of stray entries in 1342 and 1351F it cannot be held that it-was a proprietor's grove of these persons. He also considered the statement of 5 Pradhan who had deposed that there runs a rasta on plot no. 711 and few mango trees are situate on Banjar area. He, therefore, held `that the plot in dispute cannot be held to be proprietor's grove of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has endorsed the said finding. He has also rejected of, the claim of opposite party no. 4 by holding that he has not been able to prove that Ghatak, Mansuba and Devi Dayal, who were recorded in 1290F being in possession over certain trees situate in plot no. 711, were his predecessors and that of Kumar, opposite party no. 6, nor he has proved the alleged sale deed executed by Kumar. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities that the land in dispute was not grove on the date of vesting and hence neither the petitioners nor opposite party no. 4 could be held to be grove-holders of the plot in dispute. 8. The claim of the petitioners is also liable to be rejected on another ground as well. In case the petitioners were proprietors and the plot in dispute was a proprietors' grove the land in dispute could be deemed to have been settled with the petitioners if it was grove on the date of vesting and not otherwise. 8. The claim of the petitioners is also liable to be rejected on another ground as well. In case the petitioners were proprietors and the plot in dispute was a proprietors' grove the land in dispute could be deemed to have been settled with the petitioners if it was grove on the date of vesting and not otherwise. For establishing this fact it was a proprietary grove and that no compensation was paid in respect of the land in dispute to them, the petitioners should have filed Z.A. Forms 18-A, 20 and 26 to indicate that Bhumidhari rights were conferred on them in respect of the plot in dispute and compensation was deducted from gross assets determined in Z.A. Form 26. Having failed to establish the said fact they cannot claim that Bhumidhari rights would be deemed to have been conferred on them under section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. So far as the determination of title in respect of the trees is concerned it is not disputed that the plot in dispute is outside consolidation scheme and as such the consolidation authorities were neither required under law nor they would be deemed to have any jurisdiction to determine title in respect of trees situate on-the plot in dispute which was kept outside consolidation scheme. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has, therefore, rightly observed that the ownership m respect of the trees situate on the land in dispute would continue to vest in the person who was owner since prior to abolition of zamindari. I do not find any error in the said finding. 10. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. I, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs.