JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 18-7-1985 through which he has recommended that the order of the trial court dated 1-4-1985 be set aside and lekhpal be ordered to prepare fresh lots. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that in case the order of the trial court is upheld the revisionist would not get any passage from the road to his field and that would be against the spirits of the partition and further that opposite party shall get the entire land along side the road and the revisionist would be put to a great loss. These arguments have been accepted by the Additional Commissioner. Under rule 131-F of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act there is no doubt that plots which are in the separate possession of a tenure-holder shall as far as possible be allotted to such tenure-holder if they are not in excess of his share but this rule is not mandatory but merely directory and the interest of all the share-holders has to be kept in mind by the court so that no inconvenience may be caused to any of the share holders. 4. I understand that the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is not without force that the revisionist would be deprived of getting a passage from his field to the road if the Kurras are prepared in accordance with the possession of the parties. The trial court should have considered this genuine difficulty of the revisionist and should have passed a suitable order. In such circumstances I agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner and by allowing the revision I set aside the order of the trial court dated 1-4-1985 and send back the case to the trial court with the direction that the lekhpal while preparing the Kurras shall not only keep in mind the possession of the parties on the spot but will also take into consideration the question of passage from the road to the respective plots.