JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The petitioners have challenged the orders of the Consolidation Authorities by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plot in dispute is plot no. 157 recorded in the names of the contesting respondent nos. 4 to 13. An objection was filed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) by the petitioners claiming one third share as co-tenants on the ground that the land in dispute was ancestral acquisition and plot no. 138 (area 12 biswas) was recorded in the name of Shiv Govind, the ancestor of the petitioners and later on for old plot nos. 138, 139 and 133 corresponding new plot no. 157 was formed and thus plot no. 138 was also included in it to the extent of one third which has come down in the identical form with the same duration of the tenancy since the time of ancestors of the petitioners and now incorrectly only the names of the contesting respondents are recorded. 3. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the contesting respondents alleging that the land in dispute was their sole acquisition and the petitioners were not cotenants. 4. The Consolidation Authorities have rejected the petitioners' claim and the present writ petition has been filed against these impugned orders. 5. Sri S.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that plot no. 138 (area 12 biswas) was entered in 1299 Fasli (Second Settlement) in the name of Shiv Govind, the ancestor of the petitioners and just by change of the use of the land from cultivation to grove land the rights of the petitioners cannot come to an end unless the tenancy came to an end and fresh tenancy was created in the names of the respondents and the Consolidation Authorities have erred in rejecting the petitioners' claim. 6. Sri Radhey Shyam appearing for the contesting respondents urged that no doubt plot no. 138 (area 12 biswas) was included in the new plot no. 157 but the alleged tenancy cannot be deemed to continue rather it came to an end and just because plot no. 138 was included in the new plot no. 157 along with two other plots, i.e. plot nos. 133 and 139 it cannot be assumed that the same tenancy continued. 157 but the alleged tenancy cannot be deemed to continue rather it came to an end and just because plot no. 138 was included in the new plot no. 157 along with two other plots, i.e. plot nos. 133 and 139 it cannot be assumed that the same tenancy continued. In other words, the learned counsel urged that the whole plot no. 157 must be proved to have coma down in the identical form and not only a friction of it. He placed reliance on Jagdamba Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1985 R.D. 281). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without substance. It is a fact that plot no. 138 with an area about 12 biswas was entered in the name of the petitioners' a cestor Shiv Govind and this was included along with plot nos. 133 and 139 in plot no. 157 which was the corresponding new plot in 1299 Fash (Second Settlement) and the area held by the petitioners in plot no. 138 was about one third. The Consolidation Authorities have rejected the claim of petitioners simply because the land with specific number of trees planted thereon ceased to be cultivable land and the petitioners failed to prove that they had obtained permission of the zamindari to plant the trees. But it is very surprising that once the petitioners were the tenants in respect of plot no. 138 which was included in the new plot no. 157 how the tenancy of the petitioners came to an end unless it was proved that the petitioners' ancestors were rejected and fresh settlement was made with the contesting respondents. But that was not the case of the contesting respondents, nor they have proved the same. Even if the land ceased to remain cultivatable and it was converted in the grove. Nevertheless the rights of the petitioners as cotenants continued and they continued in the same capacity unelss the plea of ouster was taken and proved by the contesting respondents. As regards the case of Jagdamba Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (supra) suffice it to say that the facts of that case were entirely different inasmuch as there dispute was in respect of khata no 36. As regards the case of Jagdamba Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (supra) suffice it to say that the facts of that case were entirely different inasmuch as there dispute was in respect of khata no 36. The said khata consisted of 84 plots with an area of 44 bighas 9 biswas & 4 biswansis and it was recorded in the names of the petitioners in the basic year and the objection was filed by respondent nos. 5 to 8 claiming co-tenancy rights alleging that the petitioners' name were recorded in the representative capacity and that the contesting respondents were also in possession and the petitioners were incorrectly recorded as sole tenants and the petitioners denied the co-tenancy set up by the respondent nos. 5 to 8 in that case. Therefore it was found that the contesting respondent nos. 5 to 8 were also recorded separately as sole-tenure-holders on a separate holding consisting of 19 plots with an area 14 bighas & 18 biswas and the ancestors of the petitioners were recorded over different number of plots. Hence under those facts it was held that in order to claim co-tenancy rights in the land being ancestral it must be established by the claimant that the holding has come down intact and in identical form and that it had not been sub-divided or re-settled with some one or stranger. In the instant case it has not been shown by the contesting respondents as to how the petitioners were compensated for their plot no. 138 (area 12 biswas) nor was it pointed out that there could have been any possibility of the petitioners being allotted some other corresponding plot in lieu of their original plot. Hence the analogy of that case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions the orders passed by the consolidation authorities cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and it is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11-5-1973, 16-2-1973 and 15-12-1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer respectively are hereby quashed. As a necessary corollary the petitioners' names shall be recorded as co-sirdars co-bhumidhars to the extent of one third share in plot no. 157. As a necessary corollary the petitioners' names shall be recorded as co-sirdars co-bhumidhars to the extent of one third share in plot no. 157. However, there shall be no order as to costs.