JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 02.05.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the chalk of the Petitioner and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have been amended. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Contended that the Petitioner has been allotted a fourth chalk of inferior quality of land on plot No. 1931 etc. He urged that the Petitioner was rightly allotted a chalk on plot No. 1016 and etc. and the alteration made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is unjust and improper. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation very carefully and I find that he has given cogent reasons for making alteration in the chalk of the Petitioner and of the opposite parties. Plot Nos.1016 and 1018 were of the original holding of Khushi Ram to whom chalk has been allotted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on these plots. The Petitioner has now been allotted a chalk on his original plot No. 1892 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He deserved to be allotted a chalk on this plot which belonged to his original holding. The Petitioner was allotted a very good quality land in his three chalks and all his bad quality of land was allotted in the chalks of other tenure holders. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has, therefore, allotted a fourth chalk to the Petitioner on his original plot No. 1892 which was of bad quality of land. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has given good reasons for making alteration in the chalks and equitable adjustment has been made in the chalks of the parties. 4. It is no doubt correct to say that more than three chalks could not be allotted to a tenure holder, but in view of second proviso to Section 19(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the allotment of chalks would not be invalid merely for the reason that the number of chalks allotted to a tenure holder exceeds three. The first proviso to Sub-section of Section 19(1) of the Act would govern those cases where the subordinate consolidation authorities propose to make allotment of more than three chalks to a tenure holder as against his original holding, which they would be entitled to do only with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The first proviso to Sub-section of Section 19(1) of the Act would govern those cases where the subordinate consolidation authorities propose to make allotment of more than three chalks to a tenure holder as against his original holding, which they would be entitled to do only with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said proviso would not operate to impugned the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation in making allotment of cakes exceeding three chalks to a time holder while hearing revision and making adjustment in chalks of parries as he may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The requisite approval for making allotment of more than three chalks as referred in the first proviso to Sub-section of Section 19(1) would be implicated and inherently manifest in such an allotment of chalks made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself while deciding the revision and making adjustment in the chalks of the tenure holders. 5. Thus, in my opinion, learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed no jurisdictional error in allotting a fourth chalk to the Petitioner. He has given good reasons in allotting a fourth chalk to the Petitioner on his own inferior quality plot No. 1892. The Petitioner appeared to have been unduly favored by allotment of very good quality of land as against his original holding and he had altogether got rid of his bad quality land. The learned Dr. Director of Consolidation has. after, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, made equitable adjustment in the chalks of the parties. There, thus, appears to be no error in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.