SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The dispute re lates to the inheritance of rights of Smt. Kaushalya in respect of Khata Nos. 31,35 and 37 of village Bishunpur Phulwaria, Pargana Haveli, lahsil Pharenda, District Gorakhpur. Admittedly Smt. Kaushalya was the wife of the petitioner. She had 2/5 share in Khata Nos. 31 and 35 alongwith other recorded co-tenure-holders. Plots of Khata No. 37 exclusively belonged to Smt. Kaushalya. Kaushalya died in the year 1953. 2. The consolidation proceedings started in the village. The petitioner filed objection that he be recorded as tenure-holder in place of Smt. Kaushalya in respect of Khata Nos. 31 and 35 to the extent of 2/5 share of which Smt. Kaushalya was tenure holder and in respect of Khata No. 37 he prayed that his name should be mutated. The contesting respondents filed objection that they are entitled to inherit the share of Smt. Kaushalya being co-sharer in accordance with the provisions of Section 175 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 3. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioner and rejected the objection of the contesting respondents by his order dated 31-5-1965. The contesting respondents filed appeal against the said order before the Settle ment Officer Consolidation. The Assis tant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 18-11-1965 allowed the objection of the contesting respondents and directed the name of the petitioner to be expunged from Khata Nos. 31,35 and 37 and also directed that Khata No. 37 be recorded in favour of respondent No. 3, Ganga, alone. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the petitioner on 7- 4-1966. He held that the petitioner is ex clusive tenure holder of Khata No. 37 and co-tenure holder to the extent of 2/5 share of Khata Nos. 31 and 35. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition No. 1726 of 1966 in this Court. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 30-11-1970. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed Special Appeal No. 64 of 1970. The Special Appeal was allowed on 14-11-1973 in respect of Khata No. 31 and 35. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the claim of the parties in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed Special Appeal No. 64 of 1970. The Special Appeal was allowed on 14-11-1973 in respect of Khata No. 31 and 35. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the claim of the parties in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion after the remand held that the petitioner was not entitled to succeed the share of Smt. Kaushalya as he could not be treated as heir of Smt. Kaushalya under Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The rights will devolve upon co-sharer in accordance with the provisions of Section 175 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He held that the recorded co-tenure holders were entitled to succeed the share of Smt. Kaushalya in respect of Khata Nos. 31 and 35. In respect of Khata No. 37 it was found that no one was recorded as co-tenure holder alongwith Smt. Kaushalya and the land will pass on to the Gaon Sabha. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of these Khatas. 6. As regards Khata Nos. 31 and 35 the Deputy Director of Consolidation having found that the contesting respon dents were recorded as co-tenure holders alongwith Smt. Kaushalya only they will inherit the share of Smt. Kaushalya in ac cordance with the provisions of Section 175 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which provides that in the case of a co-widow, or a co-tenure-holder, who dies leaving no heir entitled to suc ceed under the provisions of this Act, the interest in such holding shall pass by sur vivorship. 7. The next submission of Sri R. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is in respect of Khata No. 37. It is con tended that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was upheld in the writ petition. The Special Appeal against the decision of learned Single Judge was allowed only in respect of Khata Nos. 31 and 35. The judgment in respect of Khata No. 37 was maintained. It is con tended that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was upheld in the writ petition. The Special Appeal against the decision of learned Single Judge was allowed only in respect of Khata Nos. 31 and 35. The judgment in respect of Khata No. 37 was maintained. In this respect the observation of the Division Bench is to be noted which is quoted below: "the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had found that the appellants were co-sharers of Smt. Kaushalya and as such were entitled to inherit the share of Smt. Kaushalya in regard to Khata Nos. 31 and 35 under Section 175 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This finding has not been touched or con sidered by the Deputy Director of Consolida tion. The case has, therefore, to go back for reconsideration of the appellants claim with regard to holdings Nos. 31 and 35. Since the appellants were not co-sharers in holding No. 37 their claim in regard to that holding was rightly rejected. (emphasis supplied) 8. The observations made clearly shows that the claim of the respondents was directed to be decided in respect of Khata Nos. 31 and 35. The Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation was not directed to decide the rights in respect of Khata No. 37. The decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of Khata No. 37 is hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed in respect of Khata No. 37. The earlier decision of the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation in respect of Khata No. 37 passed on 7-4-1966 is hereby main tained. 10. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed. .