JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The dispute in this writ petition is about allotment of chaks. The bone of contention is plot no. 1710 which happens to be situated adjacent to the P.W.D. Road and as such may be presumed to have especially high market value as compared to other agricultural plots situated further away from the said road, The petitioner and their cosharers did hold originally an area of 8 Biswas and 10 Dhurs in plot no. 1710. They were holding some other plots also which were adjacent to plot no. 1710, and the total area of such plots which were close to the P.W.D. road, was mentioned as 3 Bighas in para 4 of the writ petition and as 2 Bighas 1 Biswa 1 Dhur in para 14(c) of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners. Para 5 of the petition was to the effect that the plots by the road side held by the petitioners was 1710. This was admitted in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, but the area of the plot held by the petitioner's father was mentioned as 10 Bighas. Opposite party no. 3 has been given an area of 3 Biswas 10 Dhurs out of plot no 1710 although admittedly this opposite party had no original holding near the P.W.D. road. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director the petitioners have come to this court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for opposite party no. 3. The other opposite parties who were parties in the litigation before the Joint Director, have not cared to contest the petition which has been heard ex parte against them. 3. Originally the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 1341973, had given some part of plot no. 1710 to opposite party no. 3. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners had filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer in his order dated 20873 stated the grievance of the petitioners in this regard by mentioning that the opposite party no. 3 had been given undue advantage by being given some part of plot no. 1710 although he had no original holding on that spot. This grievance was found to be justified by the Settlement Officer. Against that order the opposite party no. 3 filed a revision. In the revisional judgment the Joint Director noted that the Settlement Officer had wrongly stated the 'entire' area of plot no. 1710 although he had no original holding on that spot. This grievance was found to be justified by the Settlement Officer. Against that order the opposite party no. 3 filed a revision. In the revisional judgment the Joint Director noted that the Settlement Officer had wrongly stated the 'entire' area of plot no. 1710 had been given to opposite party no. 3 although only 3 Biswas 10 dhurs had actually been given to the opposite partyrevisionist. The Hindi word 'Kuchh' (some) appearing in the S.O.C's order was misread by the Joint Director of Consolidation as 'Kul' (entire). It was further mentioned in the J.D.C.'s revisional order that opppsite party no. 3 had stated before him that he would be satisfied if he were given land over his original holdings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in that the J. D.C. had committed an error in restoring 31/2 Biswas area of plot no. 1710 to opposite party no. 3 in as much as he had misread the S.O.C's order and also that the J.D.C. had failed to give any good reason as to why opposite party no. 3 could not be accommodated against his original holdings as had been suggested before him by this opposite party. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that although there was no doubt misreading of the word 'Kuchh' as 'Kul' the order of the J.D.C. was otherwise justified in as much as the opposite party could not be adjusted at his original holdings by reasons of the fact that some portion of the original holdings had been included in a chak road and another portion had been given to opposite party no. 6 Jang Bahadur Singh. 4. The learned Joint Director has not addressed himself to the special aspect of the case, namely, that land by the road side was exceptionally valuable land irrespective of the quality of soil and other factors which are relevant for purposes of agricultural operations. Moreover, he did not mention any impediment before him against any adjustment being made between opposite party no. 3 and 6 who were both parties before the Joint Director. The petitioners have been given land out of plots no. 1728. Undisputedly these plots are low lying plots inasmuch as 1728 was a Talab and these plots were affected by water logging. 3 and 6 who were both parties before the Joint Director. The petitioners have been given land out of plots no. 1728. Undisputedly these plots are low lying plots inasmuch as 1728 was a Talab and these plots were affected by water logging. This factor had also not been considered at all by the Joint Director. The order of the Joint Director is thus not only vitiated by misreading of the order of S.O.C. but also by nonconsideration of relevant factors and cannot thus be sustained. Of course, it is not suggested that the S.O.C.'s order was correct or that it should have been upheld. All the relevant factors which have been sought to be placed before this Court on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, may be placed before the Joint Director, and it would be open to him to make suitable adjustments after considering the material factors. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Joint Director, dated 26876, Annexure 4, is hereby quashed. The Joint Director or the Deputy Director, as the case may be shall readmit the revision on its original number and decide it afresh in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs.