JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgments of the consolidation authorities. 2. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the disputed plot No. 330 and others constituting Chak No. 110 should not be allotted to the Petitioner as the same is not included within the term "holding" contemplated by the provisions of Section 3(2), (iv) and (v) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 Shri S.K. Singh has submitted in reply that the Petitioner was not willing to leave plot No. 330 and according to him the disputed land is of a better quality and as the contesting opposite parties were intending to take that piece of land, the consolidation authorities have correctly decided the claim of the Petitioner and that it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgments. 4. The learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties Nos. 7 and 8 Shri A.S. Srivastava has submitted that the aforesaid opposite parties have not got any land of the Petitioner nor they are interested in the claim of the Petitioner in any manner and that they have been wrongly Impleaded in the writ petition. During the course of argument is has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties Nos. 7 and 8 that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up the question regarding the nature of the land at the stage of Section 20 proceedings. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is clear from the impugned judgments that the Petitioner has got not only plot No. 330 but also 5 or 6 plots more. The claim of the Petitioner is that the nature of the disputed land is covered by the definition given in Section 3(2)(iv) and (v) of the Act which read as below- 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has emphasised that the disputed land is a compact area subject to prolonged water logging and a portion thereof is also usar and of inferior quality of land. The perusal of the impugned judgments indicates that none of the authorities have addressed themselves to the question raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has emphasised that the disputed land is a compact area subject to prolonged water logging and a portion thereof is also usar and of inferior quality of land. The perusal of the impugned judgments indicates that none of the authorities have addressed themselves to the question raised on behalf of the Petitioner. If the contentions of the Petitioner are correct, a legal question arises as to whether the consolidation authorities could take note of that land at the time of the allotment of the holdings or not. The main emphasis of the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 is that they were ready to take a Chak at that place hence the Petitioner should not be heard regarding his grievance. To my mind if the land could not be taken note of by the Consolidation Officer at the time of the allotment of the holdings, the conduct of the Petitioner would not be a determining factor for conferring jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities. 7. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 7 and 8 that their land is not at all affected by the claim of the Petitioner, if so, the consolidation authorities could not disturb the chak allotted to the opposite parties Nos. 7 and 8. It would be open to the parties to raise their objections before the consolidation authorities which shall decide them strictly in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgments of the consolidation authorities are hereby quashed and the consolidation officer is directed to decide the nature of the disputed land categorically and indicate as to whether the disputed land answers the description of the land mentioned in Section 3(2)(iv) and (v) of the Act or not and thereafter allot the holdings to the parties strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.