JUDGMENT J. N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-9-1986 of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur. 2. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 6-8-1982. Respondent no. 3 filed appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on 6-3-1986. The petitioner filed revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation on 3-9-1986. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several points during arguments but it is not necessary for me to discuss them all as the writ petition is liable to be allowed on a short point, namely, that the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation is based on misreading of evidence on the record. The petitioner has given a few instances of such misreading of record by the Assistant Director of Consolidation to paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition which run as under : "13. That a bare perusal of the judgment of respondent no. 1 shows that the same is illegal, improper and inequitable. The first observation is that the irrigated and high yeilding original holding possessed by the petitioner is of the valuation of 39-56 Annas whereas petitioner is allotted chak only valuation of 28-51 Annas. This is wholly inequitable observation particularly when the petitioner is a small tenure-holder and respondent no. 3 is a big cultivator. Why should the petitioner be given land of inferior quality. The other observation is that the petitioner is having land of less valuation of 24.84 Annas, here he has been given land of valuation of 39-56 Annas why so. Moreover why Puran Singh has been given more valuation than he has in his original holding. 14. That the observation that plot nos. 287, 288 and 314 valued 8 Annas are wrong. It is further wrong that they are unirrigated. The aforesaid plot are being irrigated by canal. This is obvious from a bare perusal of C. H. Form 23-A. The other observation that plot no. 94 of respondent no. 3 is unirrigated is also wrong. It is irrigated land from canal. 287, 288 and 314 valued 8 Annas are wrong. It is further wrong that they are unirrigated. The aforesaid plot are being irrigated by canal. This is obvious from a bare perusal of C. H. Form 23-A. The other observation that plot no. 94 of respondent no. 3 is unirrigated is also wrong. It is irrigated land from canal. It is highly valued and is a high yeilding land valued at 14 Annas. The respondent no. 3 has only a valuation of 33.26 paisa of his original land valued at 15 Annas and 16 Annas but has been given chak of high valuation and irrigated land to the valuation of 77-78 Annas. It may be mentioned that all his land valued 14 Annas has been given in 1st Chak. This clearly shows that the respondent no. 1 and 2 have deliberately changed the chak of the petitioner with a view to harm the petitioner and benefit the respondent no. 3 illegally. 15. That the petitioner has been deprived of his irrigation facility in his first chak due to change made by the respondent no. 1 and 2 as the canal is far away and the water can not go upward crossing the chak of a different chak holder." These allegations have not been specifically denied in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the Counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. When I decided to dispose of the writ petition finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties I afforded an opportunity to the respondent no. 3 to controvert the allegations made in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition by filing a supplementary counter-affidavit but no supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 states that his client has not responded to the letters sent by him in this regard. That being so, the facts stated in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition have to be taken as correct. Once the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition are accepted there is no option but to hold that the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation is based on misreading of the evidence on record. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Once the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition are accepted there is no option but to hold that the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation is based on misreading of the evidence on record. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 3-9-1986 of the Assistant Director of Consolidation is quashed and the case is remanded to the Assistant Director of Consolidation for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.