SHITLA PD. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 3. 3. 1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, gorakhpur, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts as stated in the petition are that during the course of consolidation proceeding, petitioner was proposed chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer at his original holding plot no. 25 towards east side of the road and his co-sharers respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were proposed towards west side of the road. It is stated by the petitioner that the road is passing through the middle of his chak. His other chak-holders No. 55 was also proposed on their original holding plot No. 26 on road side without making any reduction in area of the land on the road side. It is stated that the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was allowed without giving any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act before the settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 27. 6. 1997. Thereafter the respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred revision, which was allowed on 3. 3. 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that when the Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the argument on 3. 3. 1997, the petitioner has shown a Government Order No. C-37/g-452/81, dated 26. 5. 1981 and it was pleaded that the land of plot No. 25 is the land of the roadside and should not be given to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of the Government notification aforesaid. It is further stated that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were chak holder No. 90 were allotted chak by the assistant Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation on their original holding plot No. 31. They had not a single inch of the land on the roadside. But the Deputy director of Consolidation Illegally, arbitrarily allowed a chak to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the roadside of plot No. 25 which exclusively is the land of the petitioner. ( 3 ) PARTIES have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits. They had not a single inch of the land on the roadside. But the Deputy director of Consolidation Illegally, arbitrarily allowed a chak to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the roadside of plot No. 25 which exclusively is the land of the petitioner. ( 3 ) PARTIES have exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits. ( 4 ) ON earlier occasion on 25. 11. 1999, parties agreed that the matter may be heard finally at the admission stage. The matter was heard. During the course of the argument, the question arose as to whether plot No. 25 MI which belongs to the petitioner should have been given to him adjacent to the chak road or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that while making modification of the Judgments of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the Deputy Director of consolidation has not given the area allotted to him. He has read the judgments of the Settlement officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and has submitted that from a perusal of the chak talika it is apparent that the petitioner was given. 220 airs of the land of plot no. 25 MI. Sri G, N. Verma. learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court two maps, which are Annexure-7 and Annexure-8 to the writ petition, to show the spot position. One of the map was not clear as to the extent of plot No. 31 nor it was clear in respect of plot No. 25 ml. therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file fresh copy of the map, A supplementary affidavit along with fresh copy of the map has been filed which was earlier part of the record. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, on the basis of the supplementary affidavit, that there was an old rasta adjacent to the petitioners plot No. 25 and. village rasta was also adjacent to plot Nos. 25 and 31. During consolidation proceeding one chak road was carved out which was across petitioners plot No. 25. The petitioner was claiming his land near the old rasta but he has been given very less area. From a perusal of chak talika prepared at the stage of the Settlement officer Consolidation would show that petitioners plot No. 25/1 MI was. During consolidation proceeding one chak road was carved out which was across petitioners plot No. 25. The petitioner was claiming his land near the old rasta but he has been given very less area. From a perusal of chak talika prepared at the stage of the Settlement officer Consolidation would show that petitioners plot No. 25/1 MI was. 226 airs which was given to the petitioner but the Deputy Director of Consolidation on revision being filed by the contesting respondent gave only. 006 airs of land of plot No. 25 along with the plot No. 35 MI measuring. 220 airs. In this way the petitioner has been deprived of his original holding which was adjacent to the road. On the basis of the Government Order he has submitted that though the deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the original holding of a tenure-holder near the plot must be given to him but if some road was carved out after deducting the area from all co-tenure-holders then every chak holders have every right to get the land towards that land. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further observed that the road which has been constructed across the plot No, 25 which has been constructed after deducting the area from all the tenure-holders and it was not in existence prior to the consolidation operation, therefore, it cannot be said that it was for commercial use of only original tenure-holders. From a perusal of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer it is apparent that he held that as the road has been carved out during of the consolidation operation, after deducting the area from plot Nos. 25 and 31, therefore, both the tenure-holders are entitled to get equal preference and benefit near the roadside land. ( 6 ) SRI G. N. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of consolidation has not appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner before him. As the petitioner was not claiming land adjacent to the newly constructed chak road but he was claiming the land adjacent to old rasta where his original plot No. 25 existed but the Deputy director of Consolidation has not understood the real controversy, as such, the judgment is vitiated in law. As the petitioner was not claiming land adjacent to the newly constructed chak road but he was claiming the land adjacent to old rasta where his original plot No. 25 existed but the Deputy director of Consolidation has not understood the real controversy, as such, the judgment is vitiated in law. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not also made any spot Inspection rather has only perused the papers, therefore, he could not appreciate the controversy between the parties and correct position. He has further submitted that the settlement Officer Consolidation has made spot inspection but the Deputy Director of consolidation has not followed the legal position. ( 7 ) SRI Sankatha Rat, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that the map filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition as well as along with the supplementary affidavit would show that equity has been adjusted and both the parties have been given plot near the chak road and finding of fact has been recorded that all the tenure-holders contributed their land for the construction of chak road, therefore, they were equally entitled to get benefit of chak road and equity has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the finding of fact cannot be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further no substantial injustice has been done to the petitioner. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that from a perusal of Form 23, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is apparent that khata No. 41 was in the name of the petitioner Dina Nath Tiwari and plot Nos. 25/1. 25/2 and 25/3 were recorded in the name of the petitioner. It is also apparent from the chak talika prepared at the Stage of the settlement Officer. Consolidation that area of plot No. 25/1 Ml was. 226. From the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is apparent that the petitioner has been given only an area measuring. 006 of plot No. 25/1. Therefore, the things are apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner has been given less areas of his original holding. It is also apparent from the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he has considered the facts, before the road carved out. 006 of plot No. 25/1. Therefore, the things are apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner has been given less areas of his original holding. It is also apparent from the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he has considered the facts, before the road carved out. during the consolidation proceeding, without making spot inspection. As such, the question as to whether the petitioners plot was adjacent to the settlement road or it was near the chak road has not been properly decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The contention of the petitioner is that chak road goes across to plot No. 25 and he has not claimed the land across the chak road rather he is claiming his land original holding plot No. 25 near the settlement road which was in existence prior to the consolidation operation started, Therefore, there appears to be some mistake on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in giving finding without making spot inspection as was done by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The consolidation operation is in the shape of fresh settlement of land with tenure-holders after bringing the scattered land at one place. Therefore, if the Government Order relied upon by the petitioner applied the land near the public road has higher commercial value than the land away from such a road. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not appreciated this point. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 3. 3. 1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and remand the case to him to restore the revision to its original number and decide the same afresh after making spot inspection and keeping in view the Government Order on the point. ( 9 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Judgment dated 3. 3. 1997 passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation is set aside and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of consolidation to restore the revision to its original number and decide the same afresh after making spot inspection and keeping in view the Government Order on the point. There will be no order as to cost. .