JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order dated April 5, 1971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversing the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 2. Proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated. Chandra Shekhar, ion of Sri Lakshmi Bhushan, preferred an objection. The controversy centred round three plots, namely plots No. 150, 151 and 152. Plot No. 150 formed part of Khata No. 36, whereas the remaining two plots formed part of Khata No. 15. 3. The case set up by Chandra Shekhar was that although in the year 1929 his predecessor-in-interest, Sri Lakshmi Bhushan, was a proprietor, these plots were transferred to Indra Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents. He instituted a suit claiming a decree of preemption. In that suit, a compromise - decree was passed on September 6, 1929. It was agreed between Sarva Sri Lakshmi Bhushan and Indra Pal that they would be the co-sharers of the aforementioned plots. It was also agreed that Sri Lakshmi Bhushan would pay certain amount of money within the specified period. In the compromise, it was also recited that at the relevant time these plots were under the tenancy of Bhagawati Ram, the father of Indra Pal and Bhagawati Ram would surrender his tenancy right in these plots. Thereafter, on September 21, 1930, Bhagawati Ram, according to the esse of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, surrendered bis rights in the said plots. According to him, he delivered the possession of the same si well. The sum of Rs. 500, which was payable by Lakshmi Bhushan under the said compromise decree, it appears, was also paid as a receipt exhibiting the payment has been produced before me as an annexure to the writ petition. In 1348, the Dame of India Pal alone was recorded over plots No. 151 and 152. Bhagawati Ram died and in 1355 F Indra Pal alone was recorded in his place with respect to plot No. 150. 4. The Consolidation Officer rejected these objections and recorded a finding that Lakshmi Bhushan acquired no right whatsoever as neither his name was recorded in the revenue record, nor he was in possession over the aforementioned plots. Bhagawati Ram died and in 1355 F Indra Pal alone was recorded in his place with respect to plot No. 150. 4. The Consolidation Officer rejected these objections and recorded a finding that Lakshmi Bhushan acquired no right whatsoever as neither his name was recorded in the revenue record, nor he was in possession over the aforementioned plots. In appeal, the Settlement Officer Consolidation modified the view taken by the Consolidation Officer with respect to plots No 151 and 152. He took the view that with regard to these plots both Lakshmi Bhushan and Indra Pal were co-proprietors. However, with respect to plot No 150, he recorded a finding that Bhagawati Ram continued to be a tenant of the same throughout and upon his demise Indra Pal succeeded to his interest. 5. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has endorsed the view taken by the Consolidation Officer as the Settlement Officer Consolidation with respect to plot No 150 that the interest in the same devolved exclusively upon Indra Pal after the death of bis father, Sri Bhagawati Ram; He bar, however, disagreed with the view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation with respect of plots No. 151 aDd 152 aDd has taken the view that India Pal alone had rights in those plots. 6. I have gone through the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation more than once. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. I am of the opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed rather a perfunctory order. With respect to plot No 151 and 152 his view appears to be that even a co-sharer can lose his rights merely because he is out of physical possession over a certain property. This is absolutely an erroneous approach. It is well known that, in the case of co-sharers, the possession of one - co-sharer ensures for the benefit of the other co-sharer and the rights of a co-sharer, who is out of possession, can be extinguished only in a situation where the other co-sharer in possession hat not only pleaded but has also proved the ouster of that co-sharer. This matter is no more resintegra and is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Kailash Rai v. Raj Jai Ram and Others, 1973 Revenue Decisions 183. This matter is no more resintegra and is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Kailash Rai v. Raj Jai Ram and Others, 1973 Revenue Decisions 183. The approach of the Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to plots No. 151 and 152, in my opinion, blurred his vision and that is why he has based bis decision on the short ground that Sri Lakshmi Bhushan and his successor have failed to prove their possession over plots No. 151 and 152. 7. With regard to plot No. 150 there has been some debate at the bar. Sri Hargur Charan has pointed out that the three authorities below have consistently held that Bhagawati Ram's name continued to be recorded without any break during his life time and thereafter the name of Indra Pal was substituted. He has, therefore, urged that no interference is called for so far as plot No. 150 is concerned. This not a correct submission. As already adverted to, Sri Lakshmi Bhushan has relied upon a deed of surrender dated September 27, 1930. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not cared to make any reference to this deed Sri Hargur Charan has made an attempt to get over this document by contending that this document was void and ineffective as possession was not delivered by Bhagawati Ran in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 20 of the Oudh Rent Act. A bare reading of Section 20 disclose that it does not advance the case of Sri Hargur Charan at all. However, I am refraining from expressing any concluded opinion on this aspect of the matter as I am inclined to send back the case to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rehearing. Sri Hargur Charan next contends that in any case, Indra Pal acquired fresh rights as a tenure-holder as the successor-in-interest of the hereditary tenant Bhagawati Ram, his father. This is really an argument in a circle. If the deed of surrender was a valid document and possession had been delivered by Bhagawati Ram in pursuance of it, then the entry in bis name obviously continued with the consent either express or implied of Sri Indra Pal. Admittedly in the compromise decree Sri Indra Pal was recognised as a co-proprietor of plot No. 150 as well. If the deed of surrender was a valid document and possession had been delivered by Bhagawati Ram in pursuance of it, then the entry in bis name obviously continued with the consent either express or implied of Sri Indra Pal. Admittedly in the compromise decree Sri Indra Pal was recognised as a co-proprietor of plot No. 150 as well. Therefore, Sri Indra Pal cannot be permitted to take advantage of this entry in the name of his father. It is to be re-emphasised that the validity of the deed of surrender has yet to be adjudicated upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. If that deed was valid, the entry in the name of Bhagawati Ram in regard to plot No. 150 will be of no consequence. 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent apprehends that on the strength of the order which is being passed by me in this writ petition, the petitioners may take the law in their own hands and try to dispossess the contesting respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners assures the Court that nothing of the type will take place. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated April 5, 1971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall determine the controversy raised before him on all aspects keeping in view the fact that under the statute it has been constituted as the last court on facts and law. He shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.