ORDER K.P. Singh, J. -This writ petition is against the judgment of the Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, dated 15-10-77, whereby the revision petition filed by the contesting opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 was allowed. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the order of the revisional court does not meet the reasoning of the first appellate court and it has interfered with the Chak of the petitioner, hence it deserves to be set aside. 4. Secondly, he has contended that the Assistant Dy. Director of Consolidation has not made local inspection and has erred in disturbing the Chak of the petitioner. 5. Thirdly, he has contended that the Asstt. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted a chak of the petitioner far away from his tube-well and not in consonance with the provisions of S. 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted a Chak to the contesting opposite parties after hearing the parties and has met the reasoning of the appellate authority by allotting a Chak of only 8.53 Annas valuation on plot No. 735. In short, he has submitted that this is not a fit case where any interference should be made with the impugned judgment arising out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. As regards the first contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1972 Rev Dec 336, Chandra Bhal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Camp at Pilibhit wherein a learned single Judge has observed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any clear finding hence his order was quashed. 8. In this connection my attention was also drawn to the ruling reported in 1979 All LJ 856, Shitla Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Camp at Pilibhit wherein a learned single Judge has observed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any clear finding hence his order was quashed. 8. In this connection my attention was also drawn to the ruling reported in 1979 All LJ 856, Shitla Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation wherein a learned single Judge has observed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should pass a reasoned order and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the reasoning of the appellate authority has not been met by the revisional court, hence the impugned order should be quashed. 9. It is true that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should pass a reasoned order and should meet the reasoning of the appellate authority while reversing the judgment of the appellate authority. The appellate authority had given reason for not allotting a Chak to the contesting opposite parties at the desired place because the contesting opposite parties had 12.16 Annas valuation land on plot No. 460 whereas they wanted a Chak on plot No. 735 which was valued at 7.36 Annas only. The revisional court has allotted a Chak to the contesting opposite parties on plot No. 735 which was of 8.53 Annas valuation only, hence in my opinion the impugned judgment has met the reasoning of the appellate authority and it cannot be said that the order is based on no reason. It would have been better if the revisional court had expressed itself in greater detail and had specifically set aside the reasoning's given by the appellate authority. However, in the present case, it does not appear to me that the order of the revisional court lacks reason : altogether and it should be quashed on that score. 10. In support of the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1970 All WR (HC) 305, Bajai v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and the ruling reported in 1977 Rev Dec 259 (All), Satya Narain v. Ram Manohar but it is proper to quote the provisions of S. 21, sub-cl. Director of Consolidation and the ruling reported in 1977 Rev Dec 259 (All), Satya Narain v. Ram Manohar but it is proper to quote the provisions of S. 21, sub-cl. (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as below:- "The Consolidation Officer shall before deciding the objections and the Settlement Officer Consolidation may before deciding an appeal make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notices to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee." 11. In view of the above statutory provisions it cannot be held as a matter of law that if the revisional court has not made local inspection while interfering with the allotment of Chak made by the subordinate authorities which had made local inspection, its judgment should necessarily be quashed. It is true that in some cases propriety demands that the revisional court should also make local inspection before dealing with the claim of the parties but it cannot be contended that if local inspection has not been made by the revisional court, i1s judgment must be quashed in each case. In the present case I am not satisfied that any patent error has crept in the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation due to not making local inspection of the spot. 12. As regards the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is better to quote the provisions of Section 19 (f) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act:- "Every tenure-holder is as far as possible, allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him there." 13. It is true that by the impugned order of the revisional court the petitioner has been allotted a Chak at some distance from his tube-well but it has not been demonstrated before me what area the petitioner originally had in the vicinity of the plot over which his tube-well existed and what area he had after the disturbance of his Chak by the impugned order, hence I am not in a position to hold that the allotment of Chak made by the Dy. Director of Consolidation really contravenes the provisions of S. 19 (f) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the present case. 14. Director of Consolidation really contravenes the provisions of S. 19 (f) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the present case. 14. It is noteworthy that in writ petitions arising out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks mere mistakes of law committed by the subordinate authorities are not enough to quash the impugned judgments but the petitioners should also satisfy the conscience of the Court that grave and manifest injustice has been done to them. In allotment proceedings some hardship is bound to occur to some of the tenure-holders but unless the petitioners succeed to indicate that grave and manifest injustice has been done to their cause by the impugned judgments, no interference should be made in writ jurisdiction. In the present case I am not satisfied that any grave and manifest injustice has been done to the claim of the petitioners. Even if the impugned judgment may be technically defective. I am not inclined to interfere with the same in the exercise of my powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 15. For the reasons given above the writ petition is dismissed and the parties are directed to bear their own costs.