JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Wazid Khan, Chak-holder No. 1223, was allotted two chaks as against his original holding of the total valuation of 24.02 Annas. He was satisfied with the allotment and no objection was filed against the allotment of Chaks made to him. The Chaks were confirmed. After confirmation of the Chaks possession was also delivered to him. It appears that subsequently opposite parties 4 to 6 filed a time barred objection, under Section 9 of the C.H. Act claiming co-tenancy rights in the basic year Khata No. 1066 against the petitioner. This objection was allowed and the said persons were held to be entitled to the half share in the said holding. The opposite parties 4 to 6 had filed objection under Section 20 of the C.H. Act against the allotment of Chaks made to them as against their original holding and also as against their share in the aforesaid holding Khata No. 1066. In this objection under Section 20 the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The opposite parties 4 to 6 in their objection had claimed Chak at their original. Plots No. 839 and 840 in which they jointly had held half share and the remaining half share belonged to the petitioner Wazid Khan. The opposite parties 4 to 6, who were Chak-holders of separate Chaks, viz., Chak-holder No. 2433, Chak-holder No. 1388 and Chak-holder No. 762 respectively, had claimed that they be allotted a Chak on Plots No. 839 and 840. It would be pertinent to note that the petitioner Wazid Khan was not allotted Chak on plot Nos. 839 and 840 and he was not impleaded as a party in the objections filed by them. These objections were decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20th March, 1977 and by a non-speaking order he found that the claim of the objectors (opposite parties 4 to 6) for allotment of a Chak of them of plot Nos. 839 and 840 is justified. No reasons were mentioned in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as to why these persons were entitled to get a chak at plots No. 839 and 840. The Consolidation Officer allowed their objections and made alterations in the Chak of the petitioner. 839 and 840 is justified. No reasons were mentioned in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as to why these persons were entitled to get a chak at plots No. 839 and 840. The Consolidation Officer allowed their objections and made alterations in the Chak of the petitioner. The learned counsel had urged that the petitioner was neither impleaded in objections filed by the opposite parties 4 to 6 nor the order passed by the Consolidation Officer indicates that he had given any notice to the petitioner before altering his Chak by the impugned order dated 20th March, 1977. In the impugned order the Consolidation Officer had also not mentioned any reason whatsoever as to why the Chak of the petitioner was altered with that of the Chak of the opposite parties 4 to 6. It has been averred that when the petitioner was served with the amended C.H. Form No. 23 he preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was dismissed vide order dated January 1, 1979. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the appellate Court that a third Chak has been allotted to the petitioner by the impugned order passed the Consolidation Officer and it has been carved out of a very had quality of the land and he has not been given a Chak containing land of his original holding. Although this fact was accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the petitioner has been allotted a 'Udan-Chak' and no plot of his original holding is included in this third Chak but he dismissed the appeal by holding that in this sector petitioner's original plots No. 839 and 840 of the valuation of 6.42 Annas are located and as against that he has been allotted a Chak of 7.30 Annas near those plots he has further observed that petitioner's plot No. 719 is only of the valuation of 4.68 Annas and as such no Chak could have been given to the petitioner and it would not be justified to allot him a chak at that place. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner had preferred a revision which too was dismissed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) vide order dated February 21, 1979 exactly on the aforesaid ground. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner had preferred a revision which too was dismissed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) vide order dated February 21, 1979 exactly on the aforesaid ground. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri U.K. Srivastava urged that the Consolidation Officer acted illegally and with material irregularity in altering the chak of the petitioner vide order dated 20th March, 1977. His contention was that the petitioner was neither impleaded as a party in the case nor was afforded any opportunity of hearing before altering his Chak. The learned counsel further urged that the opposite parties 4 to 6 had claimed a Chak on plots No. 839 and 840 before the Consolidation Officer who had found this claim to be justified by an altogether non-speaking order without mentioning any reason for coming to that conclusion. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was not allotted any Chak on the aforesaid two plots No. 839 and 840 and as such even if the claim of opposite parties 4 to 6 was found to be justified and they were found to be entitled to get plot on plots No. 839 and 840, then the Consolidation Officer should have allotted to the opposite parties 4 to 6 Chak on those plots instead of allotting them a Chak on plot No. 719 etc. which belonged to the petitioner and over which the petitioner was allotted a Chak. I have carefully considered these arguments and find much substance in what has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The extract of C.H. Form No. 23 hied by the petitioner indicates that plot No. 719 is of the petitioner's holding and he was, therefore, rightly allotted a Chak on that plot. The opposite parties 4 to 6 had not claimed any Chak on plot No. 719 etc. but they had claimed a Chak on plots No. 839 and 849. Thus the Consolidation Officer, if he was of the opinion that their claim was justified, should have allotted a chak to the opposite parties 4 to 6 on those plots instead of disturbing the Chak of the petitioner and allotting him a third chak which did not contain any plot of the petitioner's original holding. Thus the Consolidation Officer, if he was of the opinion that their claim was justified, should have allotted a chak to the opposite parties 4 to 6 on those plots instead of disturbing the Chak of the petitioner and allotting him a third chak which did not contain any plot of the petitioner's original holding. Thus the alteration chart appended to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer making alterations in the Chak of the petitioner is also entirely against the observations made in the order itself. Such an alteration in the Chak of the petitioner, therefore, could not be sustained and deserved to be set aside. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), however, gave the reason for not interfering with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer stating that the petitioner's original plot in that sector, viz., plots No. 839 and 840 of the valuation of G.42 Annas are situated but he was allowed a third chak of the valuation of 7.56 Annas by the Consolidation Officer. He has further observed that the petitioner could not be allotted a chak on plot No. 619 which was a Small plot of the valuation of 4.68 Annas. This reasoning, in my opinion, is entirely erroneous. It was not disputed by the opposite parties that they held half share in the aforesaid two plots 839 and 840. They had also claimed a Chak on those plots. Thus, the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) should have allotted a Chak to them on those plots, if their claim was found to be justified for getting a chak on those plots. No objection was filed by the opposite parties 4 to 6 nor by any other tenure-holder against the proposed allotment of Chaks to the petitioner. The Chaks were also confirmed. It is no doubt correct to say that an alteration can be made even in the confirmed chaks while deciding an objection under Section 20 by any tenure-holder but that could be done only after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Consolidation Officer appears to have not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order altering his Chak. It is not disputed that plot No. 719 is of the original holding of the petitioner and he was, therefore, rightly allotted a chak at that place. The Consolidation Officer appears to have not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order altering his Chak. It is not disputed that plot No. 719 is of the original holding of the petitioner and he was, therefore, rightly allotted a chak at that place. There does not appear to be any justification for allotting a third Chak to him without including any plot of his original holding. Learned Deputy Director (Consolidation) has also committed similar error in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. He also overlooked to consider whether or not there was any justification for making any alteration of the Chak of the petitioner with that of the opposite parties 4 to 6 who had claimed a chak on their original number 839 and 840 on which no Chak was allotted to the petitioner. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer deserved to be set aside as he has not indicated any ground for altering the Chak of the petitioner with that of the opposite parties 4 to 6. Thus, on the facts and circumstances find that a completely 'Udan' Chak could not be allotted to the petitioner while giving relief to the opposite parties 4 to 6. 3. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned order dated February 21, 1979 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation), order dated January 1, 1979 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Kheri and order dated 20th March, 1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Isanagar, district Kheri, are hereby quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to restore the objections filed by the opposite parties 4 to 6 and to decide them afresh on merits according to law in the light of the observations made above after impleading such persons as he may found necessary to do so. It is, however, made clear that the possession of the parties over the Chak land, which was allotted to them vide order dated 20th March, 1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer, shall not be disturbed till the harvesting of the present standing Ravi crop, if any, sown by the parties. They will be entitled to harvest the crop which they have sown and grown on their land. The Consolidation Officer will proceed to decide case expeditiously. No order as to costs.