JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28-5-1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby he revision was dismissed. The facts of the case are few and simple. In proceedings under Section 20 of the Act after the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme, notice were issued and thereafter objections were filed and they were disposed of by the consolidation officer. The order of the Consolidation Officer appears to be against the petitioner and he consequently preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who, by his order dated 9-8-1979 allowed the appeal in part and allotted an area corresponding to valuation of 4.646 annas near the tube well of the petitioner. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and accordingly he filed a revision, which was allowed in part and 2 annas more valuation was given to him by order dated 13.5.1981. But this order was later on set aside on the restoration application being filed by contesting respondent nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter the revision came up for hearing against and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 23.8.1983 dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner has already been given a chak corresponding to the valuation of 6.646 annas, which was close to the Abadi. The present petition is directed against this order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.5.1983. 2. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chak corresponding to the valuation of 2 annas was given to the petitioner by order dated 13.5.1981 in addition to the Chak allotted to the petitioner by order dated 9-8-1979 (to the extent of 4.646 annas). But this order dated 13-5-1981 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (Annexure-2) was set aside on restoration application. In view of the order having been set also the Chak to the extent of a 2 annas valuation that was given to the petitioner was also set aside. Thereafter the revision was heard on merit. But this order dated 13-5-1981 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (Annexure-2) was set aside on restoration application. In view of the order having been set also the Chak to the extent of a 2 annas valuation that was given to the petitioner was also set aside. Thereafter the revision was heard on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that as the Deputy Director of Consolidation was deciding the revision afresh, the earlier 2 annas valuation given by order dated 13-5-1981, which was set aside later on the restoration application, should not have been taken into account. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, on the other hand urged that the calculation of the area made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order dated 20-5-1983 is perfectly correct and no ground has been made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties it is crystal clear that 2 annas valuation by order dated 13-5-1981 was given to the petitioner in revision, but that order having been set aside and the revision having been decided afresh, 2 annas valuation became non existent and could not be deemed to be given to the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 23-8-1983 committed error in counting 2 annas valuation given by the order dated 13-5-1981, which was later on set aside. It is, therefore, just ana proper that the Deputy Direct of Consolidation should decide the revision afresh without taking into account 2 annas valuation given to the petitioner by order dated 13-5-1981. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has got a tube well over plot no, 217. Hence the plot only to the extent of valuation of 6.646 annas is insignificant for the proper utilisation of the tube well. The area given to the petitioner must have been corresponding to the area of the petitioners original plots. It is, therefore, desirable that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may make a spot inspection and take into account the original area of the petitioner available in the vicinity of the tube well and after hearing the entire affected tenure holders revision may be decided afresh. 4. It is, therefore, desirable that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may make a spot inspection and take into account the original area of the petitioner available in the vicinity of the tube well and after hearing the entire affected tenure holders revision may be decided afresh. 4. In view of the discussions made here in before the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28-5-1983 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and light or the observations made above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.