JUDGMENT K. N. Misra, J. - Briefly stated, the facts of this case are as follows : 2. Petitioners held only one plot No 1703 measuring 15 biswa and 15 biswansis in their names in village Korhi, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh; that against this plot, petitioners were proposed a Chak by Assistant Consolidation Officer, of an area of 13 biswa of plot No. 1702 and other plots. Aggrieved by this allotment, petitioners preferred objection under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act) before the Consolidation Officer. They claimed that they be allotted a Chak on their original plot No. 1703. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection vide order dated 29677. He, however, did not allot to the petitioners their original plot No. 1703 but he allotted a Chak to them measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa 19 Biswansis on adjoining plots No. 1701M and 1702Metc. It may be mentioned that the Consolidation Officer has not mentioned any reason as to why petitioners could not be allotted a Chak on their original plot No. 1703 which was the only plot held by them in this unit. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 13977. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has mentioned in his order that he has made spot inspection and has found that petitioners have been allotted a Chak which also contains some Do Fasla land. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has also not mentioned as to why the petitioners could not be allotted a Chak on their original plot No. 1703. Aggrieved by this order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioners filed revision which was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 16878. Petitioners have challenged these orders passed by oppositeparties No. 1 to 3 in this writ petition. 3. It has been averred in this writ petition that the petitioners' plot No. 1703 measuring 15 biswa 15 biswansis was Do Fasla land and they have now been allotted Do Fasla land (double cropped) only to the extent of 7 biswa in their Chak and the rest land is Usar and bad quality land. 3. It has been averred in this writ petition that the petitioners' plot No. 1703 measuring 15 biswa 15 biswansis was Do Fasla land and they have now been allotted Do Fasla land (double cropped) only to the extent of 7 biswa in their Chak and the rest land is Usar and bad quality land. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since the petitioners had only one plot in their village, namely plot No. 1703, they should have been allotted a Chak on their original plot as is provided under Section 19(1) (e) of the Act, Learned counsel far petitioners further urged that no reasons have been assigned by the consolidation authorities as to why petitioners could not be allotted a Chak on their original plot No. 1703 and, as such, the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 suffer from manifest error of law and petitioners have been materially prejudiced by allotment of Chak on quite inferior land which is evident from the fact that as against their original area of 15 biswa and 15 biswansis they have been allotted a Chak of 1 bigha, 7 biswa and 19 biswansis. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perusing the averments contained in the writ petition. I find much substance in what has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19(1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenureholder, as far as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words as far as possible used in the said subsection do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder. I had an occasion to consider said provision in the case of Dr. The words as far as possible used in the said subsection do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder. I had an occasion to consider said provision in the case of Dr. A. N. Srivastava and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (1982 Lucknow Law Journal 42) wherein I had expressed that : The petitioners under the provision of Section 19(1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a Chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words as far as possible used in the said subsection do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the 'provisions contained thereunder. 5. It was further observed that : In the matter of making allotment of chaks to various tenureholders the equities have to be adjusted in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 19 of the Act. Simply because a person is a big tenureholder as compared to other tenureholders, his claim for allotment of land at the largest part of his holding cannot be given a good bye. This reason cannot be said to be a sufficient reason for making alterations in the chak of the petitioners to his detriment. 6. In view of the above, I find that the consolidation authorities have acted illegally in not allotting a chak to the petitioners on plot No. 1703 which was the only plot belonging to the petitioners. They have also not stated as to why they could not allot a chak on that plot No. 1703. The allotment of chak made to the petitioners thus suffers from manifest error of law and jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 7. There is yet another reason for quashing the order of allotment and also the impugned orders passed by the oppositeparties No. 1 to 3 by which they had refused to allot a Chak to the petitioners on their original plot No. 1703. It is evident that petitioners' plot No. 1703 was of an area of 15 biswa and 15 biswansis. There is yet another reason for quashing the order of allotment and also the impugned orders passed by the oppositeparties No. 1 to 3 by which they had refused to allot a Chak to the petitioners on their original plot No. 1703. It is evident that petitioners' plot No. 1703 was of an area of 15 biswa and 15 biswansis. The petitioners, therefore, could not be allotted land in their chak more than some 19 biswa 14 biswansis because if they would be allotted more land than 19 biswa 14 biswansis, it would be in violation of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 19(1)(8) according to which the area of holding or holdings allotted to a tenureholder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twentyfive per cent of the latter. In the present case petitioners have been allotted by the Consolidation Officer a chak of an area of 1 bigha, 7 biswa 19 biswansis as against their original holding measuring 15 biswa 15 biswansis which could not be done being violative of the aforesaid provisions. It thus appears that the consolidation officer has allotted quite inferior land to the petitioners. The allotment, therefore, also suffers from this error as well. 8. In view of the above, I find that the orders passed by the oppositeparties No. 1 to 3 deserve to be quashed. 9. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 16878 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and he is directed to restore the revision of the petitioners and decide it afresh on merits. The petitioners be allotted Ghak on their original plot No. 1703. The Deputy Director of Consolidation would issue notice to such other concerned tenureholders whose Ghaks may be affected by the allotment to be made to the petitioners on their aforesaid plot. 10. No order as to costs.