JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J.- This writ petition arises out of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 1983 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh Partly dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 2. In the basic year plot Nos. 230, 241, 242 and 243 of Khata No. 36 of village Purey Kolahal of district Pratapgarh were recorded in the name of Smt. Maharaji. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming tenancy right in the land in dispute. His case was that he was Zamindar of the land in dispute. The land was let out by him to Pal husband of Smt. Maharaji. Pal died much before the abolition of Zamindari in the State and his widow Smt. Maharaji left the village and the land was occupied by the petitioner. 3. Opposite party No. 1 Gelhar also filed an objection claiming that Smt. Maharaji had died and he being her only heir and legal representative was entitled to be recorded in the revenue records in her place. 4. The Additional Consolidation Officer who heard the objections dismissed the same by a common order on 13-1-1973. The order of the Additional Consolidation Officer was challenged both by the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 1 by filing two separate appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation disposed of both the appeals by a common order on 17-3-1973 while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner he allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 1, the Gaon Sabha did not file any revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and submitted to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, the petitioner filed a revision against the said order to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was partly allowed on 22nd August, 1973 and the petitioner was declared Sirdar of Plot No. 230. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is noticeable that while Gaon Sabha has filed two counter affidavits no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 nor anybody has appeared on his behalf to oppose the writ petition. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is noticeable that while Gaon Sabha has filed two counter affidavits no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 nor anybody has appeared on his behalf to oppose the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing his revision with respect to plot No. 230, has rejected it regarding the remaining plots No. 241, 242 and 243 simply on the ground that they were not considered for the purposes of Chak carvation. According to the learned counsel, the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in not deciding the right of the parties with respect to plot. Nos. 241, 242 and 243 on the ground that these plots were 'Chak Out', I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation reads as under : "Vivadit qation men 230 majarua hai aur shesh tin chak out hain nigrani karta dwara to lagan ki rashid prastut ki gai hai unko khasre ke karje ke Indraj ko sath deknne se yeh pramanit hota hai ki gata 230 par nigrani karta ka kabja hai shesh gate chunki akrishit hain aur chak out hain isliye iske sambandh men jo bhi Indraj nigrani karta ke paksha men hai ? Wah sahi nahin hain. 7. It is noticeable that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the objection of the petitioner with respect to plot Nos. 241, 242 and 243 merely on the ground that these plots were 'Chak out'. The fact that these three plots were 'Chak out'simply means that these plots were not taken into consideration for the purposes of Chak carvation but merely because these plots were 'Chak out' it was not sufficient to prove that the entries in favour of the petitioner with respect to these plots were false and incorrect. It appears that Deputy Director of Consolidation was under the wrong impression that as these plots were 'Chak out' he had no jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties about these plots. The 'Chak out' does not mean that these plots were out of consolidation proceedings but it means that these plots were not taken into consideration for the purposes of Chak carvation. The 'Chak out' does not mean that these plots were out of consolidation proceedings but it means that these plots were not taken into consideration for the purposes of Chak carvation. It is only if plots were out of consolidation the Consolidation authorities would have been debarred from determining the rights of the parties about these plots which does not appear to be the case of any of the parties except at the most with regard to plot No. 241. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was not legally justified in dismissing the revision of the petitioner with regard to plot Nos. 241, 242 and 243 without considering the entire evidence on record. 8. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 22-8-1973 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far it relates to plot Nos. 241, 242 and 243 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law with respect to plot Nos. 241, 242 and 243. There shall be no order as to costs.