JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - In this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Both the learned counsel have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11th July, 1991, passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation. Mathura in Revision No. 1796/607 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, here-in-after referred to as Act. The revision was filed by respondent No. 2 Kamal Singh raising certain grievances against the allotment of the chak. It may be mentioned here that earlier this revision was decided by order dated 15th November, 1990 which was challenged by present petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 414 of 1991 on the short ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed revision without considering the case of petitioner Hukum Singh and entire material on record and the reasons given by the subordinate authorities for deciding the case in favour of petitioner. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation has again allowed revision by the impugned order dated 11th July, 1991. Sri G.N. Verma has assailed the order on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in altering the exchange ratio valuation assigned to the plots at the revisional stage in view of clear bar contained in Section 11-A of the Act. It has been further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has fixed the valuation of the plot no. 1098 on the basis of the bargain and not in accordance with law and the provisions of the Act contained in Section 8-A. Sri S.K. Saxena, on the other hand, justified the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and submitted that the bar contained in Section 11-A (iii) of the Act will not apply in the present case as plot no. 1098 was not the original holding of respondent no. 2 and there was no occasion for him to challenge the valuation of the plot earlier. Sri Saxena has relied on cases reported in 1966 R.D. p. 101, 1982 R.D. p 36, 1986 R.D. p. 209 and 1982 A.L.J. (N.O.C.) p. 5. 3. I have throughly considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel. 2 and there was no occasion for him to challenge the valuation of the plot earlier. Sri Saxena has relied on cases reported in 1966 R.D. p. 101, 1982 R.D. p 36, 1986 R.D. p. 209 and 1982 A.L.J. (N.O.C.) p. 5. 3. I have throughly considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel. In my opinion, the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Mathura altering the valuation of plot no. 1098 and reducing the same from 90 paise to 40 paise cannot be sustained in law. Under Section 8-A(3) the standard plot is determined for each unit by Assistant Consolidation Officer in consultation with the members of the consolidation committee and the tenure holders of the unit. It cannot be denied that the plots no. 1099 of respondent no. 2 and 1098 of petitioner are adjoining to each other. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 2 thus were fully aware about same valuation assigned to the aforesaid plots. The respondent no. 2 thus cannot claim that he was not aware of the valuation assigned to plot no. 1098. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any reason for fixing 40 paise valuation of plot no. 1098 as required under Section 8-A (3) and rules framed thereunder. The Deputy Director, Consolidation was not justified in altering the valuation at this stage and in the manner adopted by him. In fact he has completely ignored the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8-A and Rule 20-A which provide procedure for determination of the valuation of plot. Naturally serious prejudice has been caused to petitioner as he shall be deprived of a substantial area. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far alters the valuation of plot no. 1098 thus cannot be substained in law. 4. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, dated 11th July, 1991, is hereby quashed to the extent it alters the valuation of plot no. 1098. The valuation of said plot shall remain same i.e. 90 paise. The chaks of the petitioner and respondent no. 2. shall be re-adjusted on account of change in valuation caused by this order. The chaks of petitioner and respondent no. 2 shall, however, continue on the plots on which they have been allotted under the Impugned order. 1098. The valuation of said plot shall remain same i.e. 90 paise. The chaks of the petitioner and respondent no. 2. shall be re-adjusted on account of change in valuation caused by this order. The chaks of petitioner and respondent no. 2 shall, however, continue on the plots on which they have been allotted under the Impugned order. The adjustment in the chaks shall be so made that the respondent no. 2 is not deprived of his trees. There will be no order as to costs.