ORDER K.N. Isra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6-10-1980 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jhansi, opposite party No. I by which he allowed the revision filed by opposite party No. 4 and the Chak of the petitioner was amended. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that opposite party No. 4 Smt. Shanti was allotted two Chaks. Chak No. 261 was allotted to her in respect of her holding which was recorded in her name as the wife of Jagdish while Chak No. 262 was allotted to her in respect of the holding which was recorded in her name as the daughter of Ram Das. Although, the opposite party No. 4 was the tenure-holder in respect of both the holdings which belong to her as the daughter of Ram Das and wife of Jagdish, but the Assistant Consolidation Officer proceeded to allot her two Chaks as aforesaid. The petitioner's Chak number is 282 and he was allotted a portion of plot No. 535 in his Chak. This plot 535 originally belonged to opposite party No. 4 and her sister Smt. Lalli. The sister of opposite party No. 4 Smt. Lalli was allotted a portion of plot No. 535 in her Chak and allotment to her is not disputed in the present writ petition. The opposite party No. 4 had filed objection which was directed against the allotment of plots contained in Chaks Nos. 261 and 262. She had asserted that she be allotted Chak on her original plot No. 535 which is near the village Abadi. This objection was registered as case No. 3130 and was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25th March, 1977. The objection was partly allowed and she was allotted and near the village Abadi on her original plots Nos. 530, 532 and 537, which she had held in her holding as the daughter of Ram Das. By this order, she got a Chak near the village Abadi on the land which originally belonged to her in her holding in the capacity as the daughter of Ram Das. She was, however, not allotted Chak on her original plot No. 535 on which she had claimed a Chak specially on the ground that trees, belonging to her, are situated thereon. She was, however, not allotted Chak on her original plot No. 535 on which she had claimed a Chak specially on the ground that trees, belonging to her, are situated thereon. The opposite party No. 4 thereupon preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 288 of 1977. It is said that at the time of hearing of the appeal, an application was moved by her that she is satisfied so far as her Chak No. 262 is concerned and she, therefore, did not press her appeal in respect of it. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal of opposite party No. 4 vide order dated 26th April, 1977 contained in Annexure `Vl' to the writ petition treating it as not pressed. The opposite party No. 4. after about three years filed another appeal on 16-4-1980 with an application for condonation of delay. This appeal was said to be directed against the order dated 29-3-1979. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has admitted that the said date was inadvertently wrongly mentioned in the numo of appeal which was in fact directed against the order dated 25-3-1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No. 3130 and it was directed so far the allotment of Chak 261 was concerned. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoned the dealy treating the explanation furnished by the opposite party. No. 4 to be sufficient for condoning the delay and he partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 30-6-1980 contained in Annexure `11' to the writ petition and a Chak-road was provided as approach to her Chak No. 261 which was allotted to her on the aforesaid plots Nos. 530. etc. The opposite party No. 4 still aggrieved by the said order. preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner did not file any revision against the said order by which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by opposite party No. 4 and had partly allowed the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties in the said revision, allowed it vide order dated 6-10-1980 and altered the Chak of the petitioner and of opposite party No, 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties in the said revision, allowed it vide order dated 6-10-1980 and altered the Chak of the petitioner and of opposite party No, 4. By this order, the opposite party No. 1 had allotted Chak to the opposite party No. 4 on her original plot No. 535 after making spot inspection on 4-10-1980. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has mentioned in his order that by the side of plot No. 535, there are certain trees which belonged to her and she has been proposed a `Udan' and with these observations, he allotted plot No. 535 to the opposite party No. 4. The petitioner was allotted in his Chak Plots Nos. 530M, 532M, 544/1M and 573/1. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party No. 4. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the opposite party No. 1 very carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the opposite party No. 4 having got his appeal dismissed as not pressed. she was not entitled to prefer another appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. He further pointed out that in the appeal filed by her on 16-4-1980 she has concealed the said fact that her appeal was earlier dismissed as not pressed and as such she was not entitled to any interference and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) acted illegally in condoning the delay in filing the appeal by her which, in the aforesaid circumstances, was itself not maintainable as the earlier appeal preferred by her was not pressed and was consequently dismissed. I do not find any substance in this argument. The petitioner has annexed as Annexure `3' to the rejoinder affidavit copy of the application dated 18-4-1977 filed by opposite party No. 4 which indicates that the opposite party No. 4 had mentioned in her, application that her Chak No. 262 be kept intact, as she has no grievance in respect of it. It is thus apparent that the opposite party No. 4 had not pressed her appeal so far her Chak No. 262 is concerned. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without considering her grievance with respect to Chak No. 261 dismissed the appeal in toto. It is thus apparent that the opposite party No. 4 had not pressed her appeal so far her Chak No. 262 is concerned. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without considering her grievance with respect to Chak No. 261 dismissed the appeal in toto. The opposite party No. 4 had, therefore, preferred another appeal seeking the condonation of delay. Although, in that appeal, the date of order passed by the Consolidation Officer was mentioned 29-3-1979 instead of 25-3-1977. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoned the delay and partly allowed the appeal providing her Chak-road to the chak allotted to her on plot No. 530 etc. in her Chak No. 261. The petitioner had not filed any revision challenging the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoning the delay in filing the said appeal. He, therefore, cannot be permitted now to urge that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) should not have condoned the delay and should not have entertained the appeal. In the circumstance, stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal specially when no counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly mentioned in his order that the opposite party No. 4 was allotted a `Udan' Chak near village Abadi meaning thereby that no plot of her original holding was included in her Chak. The learned counsel further pointed out that plots Nos. 530, 532. 533 and 573 were the original plots which she has held and Chak was allotted to her by the Consolidation Officer on the said plots near village Abadi. The order passed by opposite party No. 1 therefore, being based on misreading of fact stand vitiated in law is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 in reply argued that the said plots were held by her in the capacity as the daughter of Ram Das and not as the wife of Jagdish. The allotment of these plots in her chak No. 261 which has been allotted to her in the capacity of the wife of Jagdish should be treated to be a `Udan' chak. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4. The allotment of these plots in her chak No. 261 which has been allotted to her in the capacity of the wife of Jagdish should be treated to be a `Udan' chak. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4. The Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing statement of proposal and making allotment of chaks to tenure-holder in the unit had not clubbed the two separate holdings of the opposite party No. 4, one which she had held as wife of Jagdish and another as daughter of Rain Das, and she was allotted separate chaks Nos, 261 and 262 for her separate holdings, one of which she had held as sole tenure-holder and another as cotenure-holder along with her sister. If the opposite party No. 4 would not have been allotted separate chaks as against her separate holdings then the aforesaid observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding `udan' chak to her on plots Nos. 530 etc. would not have been correct but since separate chaks have been allotted to her for her separate holdings, the aforesaid observation of the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be technically correct. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be vitiated on that ground. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has altered the chak of the petitioner and has taken out plot No. 535 from his chak by wrongly observing that trees situated by the side of said plot belong to opposite party No. 4 and by the impugned order fair and equitable allotment has not been made which is against the spirit of the Act and the petitioner has been materially prejudiced. 7. In the matter regarding allotment of chaks the consolidation authorities have to act with great care and caution. In Section 19 of the Act very few guidelines are given and how, in what manner and at what place chaks be allotted to concerned tenure-holders appears to rest mostly upon the discretion of the Consolidation authorities. In the absence of proper guidelines covering all the contingencies the discretion should always be exercised in accordance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In the absence of proper guidelines covering all the contingencies the discretion should always be exercised in accordance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In Section 19 of the Act, as originally enacted, it was provided that the statement of proposals should be prepared in the prescribed form showing particulars specified in Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act in respect of each tenure-holder i. e, the list of all the plots of the original holdings and also the khasra numbers of the plots proposed to be allotted to each tenure-holder in lieu of the original plots of his holding and the nature of rights therein, the rental value and soil classification of the fields so allotted. In Clause (c) of sub-sec. (i) of Section 19 of the Act, as it then stood, it was specifically provided that briefly reasons in support of the proposal be mentioned in the statement of proposals itself. The aforesaid provision contained in Clause (c) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature that a reasoned allotment was to be made and not only that much but the reasons were also to be indicated in the statement of proposals prepared in the prescribed form itself. The legislature had thus not left the matter merely on sole discretion or subjective satisfaction of the consolidation authorities but the allotment of chaks was to be made indicating reasons for making proposed allotment. It was to be done objectively scrutinising whole thing keeping in view the interest of the entire body of tenure-holders and also having regard to prescribed particulars to be followed while making allotment. The said provision contained in sub-cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 19 of the Act was later on deleted by U. P. Act No. XXXVIII of 1958 apparently because the recording of reasons for making proposed allotment of plots to each tenure-holder in the unit was found unmanageable and unworkable. The spirit of the said provision, however, pervades although the said clause stood deleted for some reasons. By the deletion of the said clause the consolidation authorities cannot be said to be vested with unbridled discretion to make allotment of chaks irrationally. They have always to make a reasoned and justified allotment of chaks. The concerned consolidation authorities should not act arbitrarily to benefit one particular tenure-holder at the cost of others. By the deletion of the said clause the consolidation authorities cannot be said to be vested with unbridled discretion to make allotment of chaks irrationally. They have always to make a reasoned and justified allotment of chaks. The concerned consolidation authorities should not act arbitrarily to benefit one particular tenure-holder at the cost of others. In matters of allotment equities are to be adjusted. The interest of small tenure holders should not be sacrificed nor it be ignored vis-a-vis big tenure-holders who should not be permitted to grab the best land of others merely on the ground that their scattered plots of the holding has to be consolidated to the maximum at three places. The tenure-holders, if need be, can be allotted more than three chaks in order to make equitable allotment of chaks to other tenure- holders. The legislature in its wisdom by contemplating such eventualities has provided that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of chaks allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three. Thus even more than three chaks can be allotted but very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. The scheme of the Act clearly envisages fair allotment of chaks to all. Tenure-holders should be allotted land at the place where they held largest part of their holding. The allotment of `Udan' chak, i. e. not containing any of the original plots, is to be avoided as far as possible. The tenure-holder would not get any cause of grievance if he is allotted chak containing some of his original land. It has been noticed that objections are generally raised when the tenure-holder is not allotted land near village abadi of equal valuation which he had originally held and his original plots are allotted to some one else near village abadi. He also feels aggrieved if he is not allotted land of his original holding endowed with irrigation facilities or having trees or other improvements thereon. Such irregularities in allotment should always be avoided. There appears to be some executive instructions issued by the Directorate of the Consolidation department in the matter regarding allotment of chaks but those instructions contained in the Consolidation Manual have no statutory binding force and non-compliance of those executive instructions would not make the allotment illegal or void. Such irregularities in allotment should always be avoided. There appears to be some executive instructions issued by the Directorate of the Consolidation department in the matter regarding allotment of chaks but those instructions contained in the Consolidation Manual have no statutory binding force and non-compliance of those executive instructions would not make the allotment illegal or void. It, therefore, appears necessary that statutory rules be made on the subject providing in detail guidelines in the matter regarding allotment of chaks meeting all contingencies so as to avoid inequitable allotment of chaks and fair allotment to all the tenure-holders be made, which is the main purpose and cherished spirit of the Act. In this background the impugned order is to be judged. In the present case the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted with utmost care to decide the case after making spot inspection. I do not find any other infirmity in the impugned order except that he fell in error in basing his order on the version of the residents of the village who had collected on the spot and had stated that the trees situated by the side of plot No. 535 belong to opposite party No. 4. It is not disputed by the petitioner that plot No. 535 belonged to opposite party No. 4 and her sister but he contended that the trees are not situated on plot No. 535 and those trees which are situated by the side of plot No. 535 do not belong to opposite party No. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that on his local inspection, he found certain trees situated by the side of plot No. 535 and the persons of the locality who had collected there on the spot had told him that those trees belong to opposite party No. 4. This observation, to my mind, cannot be treated to be an evidence and it cannot be made basis of any decision. This observation, to my mind, cannot be treated to be an evidence and it cannot be made basis of any decision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation should have either recorded the statements of those persons on oath giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine them and to lead evidence in rebuttal if he wanted to place reliance upon the version of those persons with regard to the ownership of the trees situated on the plot in question or by the side of plot No. 535, I, therefore, find that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the aforesaid ground is illegal, erroneous and cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 6-10-1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to him with the direction to decide the case on merits in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs of this writ petition.