Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.:— This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 12.05.1977, 18.07.1975 and 31.10.1973 passed by the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The dispute relates to the land comprising in Khata No.14 and 109 of Village Sisai Bheekh Pur Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda and Khata No.14 stood recorded in the name of the petitioners and opposite parties no.4 and 5 in Clause (1) as Bhumidar and Khata No.109 is recorded in the name of opposite parties no.4 and 5 as Sirdar in the basic year. The objection was filed under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming the land in dispute as ancestral holding and further claiming that the name of opposite party no.4 and 5 was fictitiously recorded over the lands in dispute and they are the sole tenure holders of the lands in dispute. The dispute was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on account of failure of conciliation between the parties before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer allowed the parties to adduce evidence after framing of issues. Thereafter he dismissed the objection vide order dated 31.10.1973. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the claim of the petitioners in respect of lands of Khata no.14, Plot No.717, which is old grove and rejected the claim of the petitioners in respect of Khata No.109. A Commission was also issued by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Commissioner found on the spot that over plot no.717, 150 years old trees were standing. The petitioners as well as opposite party no.4, feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.05.1977 allowed the revision of opposite parties. Hence this petition. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Commissioner's report has been ignored by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the land, which was covered by the trees, could not have been resettled by the Zamindar in favour of the opposite parties. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the land was settled in favour of opposite parties in 1329 Fasli. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the land was settled in favour of opposite parties in 1329 Fasli. The name of the opposite parties came to be recorded for the first time in 1345 Fasli. The land was coming down in the name of ancestors of the petitioners from second settlement and in the absence of any evidence of ouster or ejectment, grove shall be deemed to settle with the petitioners, whereas the claim in respect of agricultural land would be a different thing. Counsel for opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that name of the opposite parties came to be recorded in 1345 Fasli with an endorsement of sixteen years of cultivation. The period of sixteen years relates back to 1329 Fasli and in 1329 Fasli Awadh Rent Act was prevalent and under the said Act, the tenancy was not heritable. Ram Dutt died issueless and after death of Ram Dutt land in dispute was recorded in the name of Cheelhoo. There was a fresh settlement in the name of Cheelhoo as at the relevant time Awadh Rent Act was applicable and under the said Act from 10.2.1922 and onwards the descendant of holder could retain the land for the rest of the period or for a period of five years after death of recorded patta holder. Ram Dutt Died before third settlement and that is why in the third settlement the name of opposite parties' ancestors came to be recorded and they continued to be in possession. No dispute or any objection was raised at the time when third settlement was prepared, neither thereafter any dispute arose. The objection has been taken after long lapse of time, after consolidation commenced, claiming co-tenancy in the lands in question. Since tenancy was not heritable and there was fresh settlement which is evident from 1345 Fasli in which period of cultivation period has been indicated as sixteen years. In the aforesaid circumstances claim of the petitioners is not tenable. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. Since tenancy was not heritable and there was fresh settlement which is evident from 1345 Fasli in which period of cultivation period has been indicated as sixteen years. In the aforesaid circumstances claim of the petitioners is not tenable. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that at the time when the second settlement was made Ram Dutt and Gaya Deen were recorded and latter on Ram Dutt died and fresh settlement in favour of Cheelhoo in respect of Khata no.25-A and 25-B with cultivatory period of sixteen years which related back to 1329 Fasli was recorded and at the said time Awadh Rent Act was applicable and prior to 1329 Fasli Awadh Rent Act was applicable and patta holders could retain the land given by Zamindar for the remaining period or after the death of patta holder land could have been retained for a period of five years in the form of successor but after five years the right of the person concerned came to an end. This was provided by an amendment in Section 48 of Awadh Rent Act, by means of an amendment dated 10.02.1922. The third settlement itself goes to indicate that there was a fresh settlement in favour of Cheelhoo. The argument of counsel for the petitioners that a grove land could not have been settled and the compensation of trees ought to have been given before fresh settlement by Zamindar. It was open for the petitioners to have instituted a suit for compensation in respect of trees planted by them but no such proceedings were ever drawn. The petitioners succumbed to the settlement made by the Zamindar and therefore this argument cannot be raised at this belated stage. Ram Dayal and others' father Lichar's name appeared in the settlement in Khata No.51 and out of 51 Khata, 14 Gata measuring 3.13 Acres land is covered in Khata No.209. This fact also goes to prove that in case they were having any objection then they ought to have raised the same at the time of third settlement. Ram Dayal and others' father Lichar's name appeared in the settlement in Khata No.51 and out of 51 Khata, 14 Gata measuring 3.13 Acres land is covered in Khata No.209. This fact also goes to prove that in case they were having any objection then they ought to have raised the same at the time of third settlement. The petitioners were clear in their understanding that there has been fresh settlement and they have not raised any objection even after abolition of Zamindari and they came forward for the first time by filing objection under Section 9 of the Act. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioners goes to indicate that they have no claim in respect of the lands in dispute. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.