ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - The dispute in the present case relates to chak No. 595 which was allowed to Raj Karan. It appears that Raj Karan died after confirmation of chak in his name. The petitioner Srimati Sundara Devi, who is widow of deceased Raj Karan, applied for mutation of her name under S. 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act I for short the Act.). Srimati Chhabiraji, opposite party No. 4 also filed a mutation application claiming that she is widowed mother of the deceased tenure -holder Raj Karan. Both the mutation applications were allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17-2-1971 and names of both the claimants, namely, Srimati Sundara Devi and Srimati Chhabiraji were ordered to be mutated in place of deceased tenure-holder Raj Karan. The said order became final between the parties. It appears that the petitioner, after conclusion of mutation proceedings, moved an application for partition of the joint chak and claimed that her half share be separated. This application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23-11-1972. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by an ex parte order dated 22-1-1973. This ex parte order was, however, re-called and after hearing both the parties. the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 10-4-1973 by holding that after confirmation of chak and conclusion of the mutation proceedings, the joint chak cannot be partitioned on the application moved by the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by Joint director of Consolidation by order dated 30-12-1971, and the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities were confirmed. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. R. Khan urged that since there was no dispute with regard to the share of the parties in the joint chak which the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 inherited after death of Raj Karan and as such the consolidation authorities acted illegally in refusing to partition the joint chak. I am unable to agree with this contention. 3. It is not disputed that Raj Karan was allotted chak No. 595 and on his death it devolved upon petitioner and opposite party No. 4 in equal shares. I am unable to agree with this contention. 3. It is not disputed that Raj Karan was allotted chak No. 595 and on his death it devolved upon petitioner and opposite party No. 4 in equal shares. Mutation proceedings were also concluded and the names of petitioner and opposite party No. 4 were ordered to be mutated in place of deceased tenure-holder Raj Karan. There is no dispute with regard to the mutation order passed by the consolidation authorities in favour of petitioner and opposite party No. 4. 4. The question for consideration is whether after confirmation of chak and conclusion of, mutation proceedings the consolidation authorities should have proceeded to partition the joint chak or not. Learned -counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision under which the consolidation authorities should have proceeded to partition the joint chak after conclusion of the mutation proceedings under S. 12 of the Act. The provisions contained in S. 12-D of the Act relate to amalgamation of holdings and the provisions contained in Sections 13 to 18-of the Act, as it stood prior to amendment Act. No. VIII of 1963, were deleted by the said amending Act.The provisions contained in Section 12-C were also deleted by the aforesaid amending Act. The provisions contained in S. 9-C of the Act regarding partition of joint holdings could not be attracted to the present case because of the conclusion of the mutation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. S. 9 -C provides that the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer may partition joint holdings under S. 9-A, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S. 178 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, or any other law, and may also partition the same suo motu. This provision, therefore, governs cases regarding partition of joint holdings at the stage under S. 9-A (1) of the Act prior to the carvation of chaks in view of specific bar provided under S. 11-A (ii) of the Act to that effect. In the proceedings under S. 12 of the Act, the heirs and successors can no doubt make a prayer for partition of joint holdings which devolved on them because the provisions of Sections 7 to 1 I have been made applicable mutatis mutandis in proceedings under S. 12 in view of the provisions contained in sub-sec. In the proceedings under S. 12 of the Act, the heirs and successors can no doubt make a prayer for partition of joint holdings which devolved on them because the provisions of Sections 7 to 1 I have been made applicable mutatis mutandis in proceedings under S. 12 in view of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. In the present case, however, I find that even the proceedings under S. 12 were concluded and the names of petitioner and opposite party No. 4 were ordered to be jointly mutated in place of deceased tenure-holder Raj Karan. In this view of the matter I do not find any error has been committed by the consolidation authorities in refusing to partition the said joint chak after the conclusion of mutation proceedings. 5. In view of what has been said above I find that the consolidation authorities have not acted illegally in refusing to partition the joint chak which the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 now hold jointly after death of the recorded tenure-holder Raj Karan. The petitioner can, after denotification of the village under S. 52 of the Act, file a suit for partition if she may so like. There appears to be no error of fact, law or jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 so as to call for inference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. I however, direct the parties to bear their own costs.