S. P SRIVASTAVA, J, J. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 Ram Pher filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.-The revis ing authority, under the impugned order has, whole setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority in the matter relating. to the adjustments in the chaks of the petitioner and the contesting respondent No. 2, altered the chaks of the petitioner. 2. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondent Ram Pher and have also care fully perused the record. 3. In the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and objection had been filed by Ram Pher, the respondent No. 2 against the chak allotted to Pati Raj, Babu Lai, Mahavir and Rama Shankar praying that the first chak allotted to him on plots No. 10, 21 and 22 be allotted to the tenure-holders of the plot No. 25 and they be adjusted in plots No. 10,21 and 22. In the alternative it was prayed that any suitable order may be passed which may be found appropriate and the objector be allotted a single chak. The Consolidation Officer al lowed the aforesaid objection to a limited extent excluding from the chak of the ob jector some area of plots No. 21 and 22 and allotting the corresponding area from plot Nos. 42/1 and 30. It was found that the objector had been allotted two chaks which included his original holdings. It was also noticed that Pati Raj and others had been allotted a chak which included their plot No. 25 which constituted their only largest holding wherein a "well" was also situate which was a private source of irrigation. The Consolidation Officer found that the relief claimed by the objec tor for allotting a chak on plot No. 25 was not at all justified. However, so far as the alternative relief claimed by the objector was concerned the Consolidation Officer modified the chak allotted to the objector in the light of the prayer made by the objector himself and excluded plots No. 21 and 22 from his chak providing the land from other plots. 4. However, so far as the alternative relief claimed by the objector was concerned the Consolidation Officer modified the chak allotted to the objector in the light of the prayer made by the objector himself and excluded plots No. 21 and 22 from his chak providing the land from other plots. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the adjust ment granted by the Consolidation Officer in his chak, the objector Ram Pher preferred an appeal. The appeal was, how ever, dismissed upholding the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said order was thereafter challenged in revision which was disposed of vide the order impugned in the present case. 5. In the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed that Ram Pher had requested for the allotment of a single chak over plots No. 30 and 42 which constituted his largest holdings. He has specifically noticed in the impugned order that the revisionist Ram Pher had prayed for allotment of a single chak over plot No. 30 etc. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion under the impugned order, ordered drastic changes in the chaks of various tenure-holders affecting the chak of the petitioner in such a manner that the total area of plot No. 25 which constituted the largest original holding of the petitioner was taken out from his chak and in its place he was allotted various portions of plots No. 10 and 22. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned alterations directed under the impugned order passed by the revising authority had not only deprived the petitioner of his largest holding but had also resulted in depriving him of his only source of irriga tion which could not be permitted special ly in view of the principles enshrined under Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has further been urged that the petitioner was a very small tenure-holder having a total area of. It has further been urged that the petitioner was a very small tenure-holder having a total area of. 53 decimal of agricultural holding and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction contemplated under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the discretion concur rently exercised by the Consolidation Of ficer as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while adjusting the equities in the matter relating to the allotment of chaks in the light of the prin ciples underlying Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the revis ing authority ought not to have interfered, specially when, there is no prohibition under the Act in regard to allotment of two chaks in the same sector and the objector had in fact been allotted chaks on his original holdings. 8. The learned Counsel for the con testing respondent has tried to support the impugned order asserting that the im pugned alterations do not prejudice the petitioner at all and no case for inter ference, has been made out in the present proceedings. 9. This Court in its decision in the case of Chandra Pal Singh v. Prem Dutt Rai and others, 1980 RD123, after noticing the various other decisions of this Court had observed that in view of the provisions contained in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it was necessary to allot a chak in a plot where exist the private source of irrigation of the concerned tenure-holder and also the largest part of his holding observing that the legislature had made a clear provision to that effect and allotment of a compact area at the place where a tenure-holder holds the largest part of his holding or his private source of irrigation should be as a matter of rule and any departure from it should be only by way of exception. It was further observed that in case of non-compliance with the aforesaid provisions the con solidation authorities will have to assign good reasons as to why it was not prac ticable to follow the aforesaid provision pointing out that the consolidation authorities are not invested with arbitrary powers to make any kind of allotment ac cording to their sweet-will without any rhyme or reasons. It was also observed that in case a small tenure- holder is not al lotted a chak where he holds the largest part of his holdings or where exists his private source of irrigation his fate will be doomed as it would become impossible and impracticable for him to instal tube-well at every small chak. This Court had emphasised that law casts a duty on the consolidation authorities to provide a chak to the chak holder at the plot where he holds the largest part of his holding or his source of irrigation. 10. In its another decision in the case of Krishna Pratap Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 RD 216, this Court clearly pointed out that the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is not akin to an appellate jurisdiction where it is possible and permissible to enter into questions of fact and reappraise the evidence but this jurisdiction must fall short of the appellate jurisdiction. 11. The perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as; affirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Con solidation) clearly indicate that relevant facts had been taken into account while making the adjustments in the chaks securing that the petitioner retains his largest part of his holding including his private source of irrigation. I am clearly of the opinion that no ground had been made out which could justify any interference in the allotment of the chak of the petitioner as affirmed by the appellate authority. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record and the ratio of the decisions referred to herein above sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court. 13. In view of my conclusions indi cated herein above this writ petition suc ceeds and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition is quashed. 14. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.