JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case therefore learned counsel for the parties agreed that this case may be decided on merits. 2. By present petition under Article 226 of the constitution impugned judgement dated 9th June 1989 passed in revision under Section 48 of the U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 3. It appears that in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act valuation of plot no. 1734 was changed and in revision objection was taken by the respondent no. 3 that valuation cannot be changed in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The reliance was placed on Ram Nihor v. D.D.C. & others (1983 RD 1) before Deputy Director of Consolidation, in which it was held that the objections about the valuation may not be taken at the stage of Section 21 rather it must be taken at the stage of Section 9-A of the Act otherwise Section 11-A would operate as a bar. Relying upon that case revision was allowed. However, in the operative portion without assigning reason and without considering case of respective parties about convenience or otherwise in respect of adjustment of the chak, change in the chak has been directed to be carried out. 4. Mr. S. N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner urged that without assigning any reason just in operative portion, interference in the chak has been made which was not justified. 5. Mr. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand urged that although reasons have not been assigned in so many words but the reasons assigned are sufficient and revision has been correctly allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act objection about the valuation cannot be decided, and proper stage for the same is Section 9-A of the Act. But this not wholly correct. In case some body is given a plot in appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act objection about the valuation cannot be decided, and proper stage for the same is Section 9-A of the Act. But this not wholly correct. In case some body is given a plot in appeal. However, it appears that no reasons have been given in the Judgement about the adjustment in the chak and just in the operative portion of the order (page 11 of the paper book and last paragraph of the certified copy of the order) it has been stated that the change in the chaks of the parties would be carried out as given in the appended chart. It is well known principle that the reasons must be given and convenience or otherwise of the respective parties must be taken into consideration but same has not been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, consequently impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. Petition succeeds and allowed. Impugned order 9th June 1989 is hereby quashed and matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direction to hear the parties afresh and decide the revision after considering the feasibility about the adjustment in the chak taking into account Convenience or otherwise of respectively parties.