JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner before me is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has arbitrarily, interfered with the chak allotted to the petitioner by the appellate authority. Plot no. 629 allotted to the petitioner at the stage of the Settlement Officer (C) had a tube well belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, the interference of the chak of the petitioner without considering the source of irrigation belonging to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly unwarranted, unjustified and arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the learned counsel for the opposite parties on the ground that plots nos. 802 and 803 belong to the contesting opposite patties so they were rightly given to them, 4. The perusal of the chart attached with the impugned judgment and the map produced by the petitioner indicate that the plot given to the petitioner in lieu of plots nos. 629, 802 and 803 is a little away from the source of irrigation existing in plot no. 629. The revisional court has observed in its judgment that by interference with the chak of the present petitioner, the petitioner would not be in a worse position. The aforesaid observation, has been challenged by the petitioner vide para. 13 of the writ petition and in counter affidavit the contesting opposite parties have not controverted the averments made in paragraph 13 to the effect that the respondent ho. 1 has completely ruined the petitioner's chak. 5. I do not find any reason in the impugned judgment why the chak allotted to the petitioner at the stage of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has been interfered by the revisional court specially when the plots nos. 802 and 803 were near plot no. 629 of the petitioner. No doubt the petitioner has given an URAN chak including plot nos. 802 and 803 by the Settlement Officer (C), but that allotment could be justified in view of the provisions of Section 19(f) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The revisional court could interfere with the chak allotted to the petitioner at the stage of the Settlement Officer (C) by giving cogent reasons therefor. 802 and 803 by the Settlement Officer (C), but that allotment could be justified in view of the provisions of Section 19(f) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The revisional court could interfere with the chak allotted to the petitioner at the stage of the Settlement Officer (C) by giving cogent reasons therefor. The petitioner has emphasised before me that the plots given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are a little away from the petitioner's source of irrigation and there does not exist any source of irrigation. Therefore, the petitioner is substantially prejudiced by the impugned judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has read a portion of the judgment and has tried to support it on the ground that according to the revisional court the petitioner would not be prejudiced. Since the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition remain uncontroverted. I think it proper to quash the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 5-1-1985 and direct the revisional court to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 19 (f) of the U.P.C.H. Act. The impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law as it has given no valid reasons for interference with the petitioner's chak at the stage of appellate authority in the impugned judgment. The revisional court has overlooked the provisions of Section 19 (f) of the U.P.C.H. Act while interfering with the petitioner's chak. Since the judgment of the revisional court dated 5-1-1985 is hereby quashed, the latter judgment dated 7-4-85 would also fall through. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 5 1-1985 and the judgment dated 7-4-1985 are hereby, quashed and the revisional court is directed to examine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. The revisional court should decide the revision petition hereafter expeditiously. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.