JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether inheritance would be governed by the provisions of Section 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties the following pedigree is necessary :- 3. The plaintiff-petitioner had claimed ? share in the disputed land under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act whereas the defendants had denied the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner to the extent of ? share and according to them the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to only 5/12 share. All the revenue courts have negatived the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 R.D. page 149 Ram Jivan v. Smt. Phoola and others, as well as the ruling reported in 1976 A.W.C. page 654 Jagar Nath and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, the revenue courts have patently erred in determining the share of the plaintiff-petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error of law much less patent error of law hence they needed no interference. He has also indicated that the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. It is note-worthy that in the above pedigree Niadar died prior to Hindu Womans Right to Property Act, 1937, hence his widow would not inherit the property from her husband, yet it is admitted to the parties that she was entitled to ? share in the disputed land. On this assumption the petitioner claimed her ? share being preferential heir whereas the contesting opposite parties have claimed share relying upon the provisions of Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. share in the disputed land. On this assumption the petitioner claimed her ? share being preferential heir whereas the contesting opposite parties have claimed share relying upon the provisions of Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 149 Ram Jivan v. Smt. Phoola and others would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in that case the lady had inherited some interest from her husband under the provisions of Avadh Rent Act, hence their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated that the provisions of Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were attracted to that case and not the provisions of Section 174 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the present case as the widow did not inherit the property belonging to her husband, the aforesaid ruling would not be of any help to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot succeed in getting the share of Niadar on the basis of the provisions of Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 7. As regards the ruling reported in 1976 A.W.C. Page 654 Jagannath ana others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others a learned Single Judge of this Court in para 8 of his judgment has observed as below :- "(c) Where she asserts nothing, there also she would acquire full rights unless it is established by the respondents that she had entered into possession as an heir or that she had taken possession of the property as a result of an arrangement with the collateral or other claimants opposing her title." 8. In the present case it is not dear as to how the widow of Niadar got ? share in the disputed property, especially when she could not inherit the share of her husband. There is no evidence that in pursuance of any arrangement amongst the other co-sharers Smt. Hardei got ? share in the disputed property. In view of the observations of Hon'ble, the present Acting Chief Justice of this Court in the ruling reported in 1976 A.W.C. p. 654 Jagannath and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, vide paragraph 8 (c) it is clear that the widow of Niadar had acquired full right to the extent of ? share in the disputed land. share in the disputed land. In this view of the matter on the death of Smt. Hardei it is to be seen as to who will inherit the property as Smt. Hardei had not inherited the interest from her husband, the provisions of Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act would not be attracted. The parties are not the heirs mentioned in Section 174 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act, hence the parties being co-sharers in the disputed land would inherit the property according to the provisions of Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act." Therefore, the revenue courts have rightly determined the plaintiffs share in the disputed land to the extent of 5/12 share. I must confess that much can be said for the claim of the petitioner but at the same time I am unable to hold that the revenue courts have patently erred in determining the share of the plaintiff-petitioner in the circumstances of the present case. 9. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.