PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today may be taken on rec ord. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 24th April, 2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revi sion No. 1 filed under section 48 (1) of the U. P. C. H. Act. 3. The present petition arises out of Chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner claims that his original holding is 566 where there is a tubewell on Chak No. 591. The said Chak has been allotted to the contesting respondent No. 2 herein. 4. The sole contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no reason has been assigned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision for not allotting plot No. 591 wherein his source of irrigation is there. 5. Learned Counsel for the respon dents, on the other hand, supports the im pugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not said even a word with regard to the non allotment of plot No. 591 to the petitioner. It has not been disputed in the impugned order that the said plot No. 591 is not original holding of the petitioner. It has also not been disputed that in the said plot there is a tubewell. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in my considered opinion has committed illegal ity in interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by taking away the plot No. 591 from the hands of the petitioner. 8. In the result, the writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed. The order dated 24. 4. 2008 is, therefore, set aside. The matter is restored back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass afresh order in accor dance with law keeping in view the obser vations made in the body of the judgement. Petition Allowed. .