JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Both these writ petitions arise out of proceedings for allotment of Chaks under section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the writ petitions are against the order of the revisional court dated 30-10-1980. 2. In Awadh Behari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, Writ No. 275 of 1981 it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he held 12 bighas and odd irrigated land whereas he has got only 6 bighas and odd as irrigated land, hence the impugned judgment should be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the provisions of section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act have not been complied with, hence the impugned judgement is patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 3. In Sudama Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, Writ petition No. 2491 of 1981 it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not got his original plots, hence the impugned judgment of the revisional court should be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not been allotted any chak at the largest part of his original holding nor he has got chak near the well owned by him. It has been stressed that the impugned judgment should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the revisional court for decision afresh. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties in both the writ petitions tried to support the impugned judgment. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The impugned judgment is legally correct and the claim of the petitioner in writ petition No. 275 of 1981 cannot be accepted. No doubt some hardship has occurred to the petitioner but the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act do not indicate that a tenure-holder should get as much irrigated land as he held originally since the petitioner has got land of equal value to the value of his original holding and the areas allotted to him is also within permissible limits. I do not find that the impugned judgment sutlers from any patent error of law. 6. As regards Sudamu Prasad v. Dy. I do not find that the impugned judgment sutlers from any patent error of law. 6. As regards Sudamu Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, Writ Petition No. 2491 of 1981-31 it is true that the petitioner has not got any chak on the largest part of his holding, but it has been demonstrated that he has got chak near the private source of irrigation, i.e. the well claimed by him. It is note-worthy that the petitioner in this writ petition had not got his original plots even at the stage of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and he did not raise his voice against those judgments, hence in the writ petition he cannot be permitted to urge that the allotment is not in accordance with the letter of law. Really if the petitioner wanted to press his claim of a chak on the largest part of his holding, he should have filed an appeal against the judgment the Consolidation Officer or he should have filed a revision petition against the judgment of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It appears to me that he was satisfied with the allotment of chaks at the stage of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) but when his chak was disturbed by the revisional court, he has tried to urge the legal point. The perusal of the Schedule attached with the impugned judgment indicates that the original plots of the petitioner had not been taken away by the impugned judgment. Therefore, no manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioner by the impugned judgment though the impugned judgment is not quite in consonance with the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act so far as the petitioner in this case in concerned. On the over all picture, it is not a fit case where the impugned judgment should be quashed at the instance of the petitioner especially when be failed to agitate his claim before the Appellate Authority and the revisional court. 7. In the result both the writ petition - fail and are accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.