KRISHNA MURARI, J. These two connected writ petitions have been filed by two brothers challenging order dated 8-7-2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the writ petitions raise common question of facts and law and the same have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned Counsel for respondents No. 5 to 9 and Sri A. N. Srivastava appearing for respondent No. 10. 3. This petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. Facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under : Petitioner is Chak Holder No. 176. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was proposed one Chak at Plots Nos. 379, 380, 381 etc. . However at the stage of Consolidation Officer, the proposed chak of petitioner was bifurcated into two chaks and accordingly he was allotted two chaks. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer making certain changes in the chak proposed to respondents No. 3 and 4, they filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was partly allowed vide order dated 25-1-2002. By the appellate order chak of respondents Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 was affected. Appellate order was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing a revision. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 also filed a revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common order dated 16-5-2002 allowed both the revisions. Aggrieved by the revi-sional order, respondent No. 10 preferred Writ Petition No. 28169 of 2002 (Ram Kumar v. D. D. C. Allahabad and others), which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 19-7-2002 and the dispute between the parties was remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. Up to this stage, chak of the petitioner was not disturbed. After remand made by this Court, Deputy Director of Consolidation again allowed both the revisions and disturbed the chak of petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. It has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioner that although no relief was claimed against the petitioner in revision, still Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the case of petitioner allowed the revisions after taking out original plots No. 379, 380, 381 etc. from his chak and instead allotted udan chak without any rhyme or reason. 4. It has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioner that although no relief was claimed against the petitioner in revision, still Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the case of petitioner allowed the revisions after taking out original plots No. 379, 380, 381 etc. from his chak and instead allotted udan chak without any rhyme or reason. It has further been urged that by the impugned order, petitioner has been allotted four chaks which is in violation of proviso to Section 19 (1 ) (e) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has further been urged that plot Nos. 624, 649 etc. which have wrongly been allotted in the chak of petitioner, are totally udan and are original holding of respondent No. 2 and are inferior quality land. Learned Counsel for petitioner has also contended that finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner and his brother Ram Awadh have been allotted area of Plot Nos. 379, 382 and 365 much more than their share is patently erroneous as the petitioner and his brother have 1/2 share in the said plots. 5. In reply, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents have urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation has given cogent reasons for disturbing the chak of petitioner and thus the impugned order does not call for any interference. It has further been urged that by the impugned order equity have been adjusted between the parties and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Till the matter was remanded back by this Court vide order dated 19-7-2003 neither the chak of petitioner was disturbed nor any relief was claimed against him. It was only after remand, respondents moved an application, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation making new demand which was not made earlier. A perusal of impugned order further goes to show that the chak of petitioner was disturbed only on the ground that petitioner and his brother have been allotted area of plots Nos. 379, 382 and 365 much more than their share which has been seriously disputed by petitioner. There is no proper denial of this fact in the two counter-affidavits filed by contesting respondents. 379, 382 and 365 much more than their share which has been seriously disputed by petitioner. There is no proper denial of this fact in the two counter-affidavits filed by contesting respondents. Apart from above reason which has been disputed by the petitioner, no other reason has been recorded in the impugned order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to disturb the chak to petitioner and to deprive him from his original holding. There is also absolutely no reason for allotting tour chaks to the petitioner. Further the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also failed to consider that a completely new demand was raised by the contesting respondents after remand made by this Court. 8. No doubt, Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak allotment proceedings can make adjustments but conclusion for making adjustments in the chak of the parties should be supported by reasons to be recorded after discussing the rival case of the parties. In the present case, except for reason referred above with has not been substantiated by any evidence there is no other reason recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation to disturb the chak of petitioner at the revisional stage. 9. In view of the above discussions impugned order dated 8-7-2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Both the writ petitions stand allowed. Dispute between the parties is remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to be decided afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made hereinabove after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him. Petition allowed. .