JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 31-5-1984 (Annexure 2' to the petition), order dated 31-1-1985 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 20-4-1989 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur in the proceedings u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Petitioners' objection u/s 20 of the Act was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and their appeal failed and the revision filed by them also met the same fate. The present petition has been filed against the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation Authorities. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It has been urged that the Petitioners wanted chak over plot No. 886 whereas they have been given a chak over plot No. 625. This fact has been mentioned on page 20 of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. It was further urged that out of chak formed on plot No. 825 and the Petitioners' original plot 16 annas valuation may be deducted and that may be added in plot No. 866 and that the Petitioners may be given chak on their largest holding and this has not been done by the consolidation authorities and hence their orders are manifestly erroneous. 3. Kehar Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Unreported Revenue Cases 1974 p. 380 was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, la that case the words 'as far as possible' as used in Section 19 of the Act have been explained. It has been held that so far as it is practicable the Assistant Consolidation Officer should do what is laid down in Section 19(2)(b), unless it is possible for him to do 10 he has no discretion in the matter and is bound to do what the legislature requires him to do. He has discretion only when It is not possible for him to do so and the legislature had to provide for the contingency in which It was not practicable to comply with the provisions of Section 19(2)(b). It has further been provided In that case that if a large number of tenure-holders were close to one another It would be Impossible for each one of them to be allotted a compact area in that block. 4. It has further been provided In that case that if a large number of tenure-holders were close to one another It would be Impossible for each one of them to be allotted a compact area in that block. 4. In the Instant case I have looked Into the judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Joint Director of Consolidation and found that the Petitioners have been given chaks over their original plots Nos. 886 and 625 and plot No. 866 was close to the abadi. The clause 'as far as possible' has not been stated in the judgments of either of the authorities, namely, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Joint Director of Consolidation that as far as possible the authorities have applied their mind and it was not possible to allot chak in any other way than what the authorities were doing. 5. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC indicates as to how the judgment of the appellate court should be written and what should be the contents of judgment do not apply to the Act. Similarly the provisions of Order 20 Rules 1 and 4 CPC providing for writing judgment of trial court also do not apply to the Act. Under the Act also there is no provision as to how judgment should be written and the provisions of Section 19 of the Act have to be literally fulfilled in every judgment. It cannot therefore be assumed that the legislature ever intended that the words 'as far as possible' should be indicated and written in every judgment or order. The Consolidation Authorities are not required under law to state in the order that 'as far as possible' the adjustment of Chaks have been made according to the guidelines contained u/s 19 of the Act. It has, however, to be judged by this Court or by the Revisional or any other higher Court to judge whether allotment has been made consistent with the guidelines contained u/s 19. I am of the opinion that Kehar Singh's case (Supra) does not help the Petitioner. 6. It has, however, to be judged by this Court or by the Revisional or any other higher Court to judge whether allotment has been made consistent with the guidelines contained u/s 19. I am of the opinion that Kehar Singh's case (Supra) does not help the Petitioner. 6. In Chandra Pal Singh v. Prem Dutt 1980 RD 123 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was held that the allotment of compact area where tenure holder holds largest part of his holding or has source of Irrigation should be as a matter of rule and any departure from it should be only by way of exception. In the instant case the judgment of the Consolidation officer indicates that over plot No. 856 the Petitioners have been given 19 annas valuation and the other plot No. 886 was close to the abadi as observed by the Settlement Officer in appeal. As the Petitioners were small tenure holders, these plots have been given to them and there is sufficient indication of the fact that the Petitioners have been given Chak near their Abadi and the provision of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act has been complied with. Hence there being no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the case, but these principles as enunciated in Chandra Pal's case (Supra) have been complied with by the Consolidation Officer and also by the appellate court and revisional court. 7. Jagarnath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1980) AWC 613 was a case about allotment of chak where the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act were interpreted and the observations made on page 615 in para 12 are set out below: ...the consolidation authorities should, as far as possible i.e. so far as it is practicable, unless it is a case where it is not possible to do so, allot land at the place where the tenure holder holds the largest part of his original holding. The orders of the consolidation authorities must sufficiently indicate that they were alive to the requirement that a departure from the normal rule can be made only in an exceptional case. If, therefore, in my opinion, the order fails to so sufficiently indicate, it must fail. 8. The orders of the consolidation authorities must sufficiently indicate that they were alive to the requirement that a departure from the normal rule can be made only in an exceptional case. If, therefore, in my opinion, the order fails to so sufficiently indicate, it must fail. 8. In the instant case from the judgments of Consolidation Officer as also of the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation it is sufficiently clear that they were conscious of the requirements of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act as far as practicable and the Petitioners were allotted chaks over some of their plots close to the village abadi. If the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation does indicate that he has applied his mind to all the requirements of the grievance of the Petitioners hence the pith and substance of the ratio of Jagannath's case has been followed. 9. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners 1 am satisfied that the consolidation authorities were conscious about the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act and they have applied these provisions as far as possible, in other words as far as it is practicable. 10. I am of the opinion that the term 'as far as it is possible' has not to be indicated in each and every judgment rendered by the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or by the Deputy/Joint Director of Consolidation. It is sufficient if from the judgment it does appear that the court has applied its mind to the provisions of Section 19(1)(e) or 19(1)(f) of the Act. In the instant case I am satisfied that they were conscious about the intention of the legislature. 11. No other point has been raised before me. 12. In view of the discussions herein before, the petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed summarily.