S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Tripathi, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents. 2. Challenge is to the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation by which in the revision certain changes in the chaks of the parties have been made. 3. Proceedings are under section 20 of UPCH Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. Needless to say that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to accept the claim of both sides in its entirety and thus the approach of the Court is to see that whether there is any violation of section 19 of the UPCH Act or petitioner can be said to have suffered any serious prejudice calling for interference in the equity jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation is very cryptic, non speaking and the claim/hardship of the petitioner has not been even touched and just on mere asking of revisionist, revision has been allowed. Submission is that claim of revisionist might be justified and that may be accepted but at the same time, comparative hardship and inconvenience of petitioner was also to be examined. Submission is that grievance of petitioner of irrigation facility and other thing has not been considered and therefore, judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation needs interference. 5. In response to aforesaid, Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel submits that the Deputy Director, Consolidation is the last Court for balancing the equity between the parties and therefore, if on consideration of entire facts adjustment has been made then that is not to be interfered by this Court. 6. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 7. There is no dispute, about, the fact that scope of interference in the allotment of chak proceeding is very limited. 6. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 7. There is no dispute, about, the fact that scope of interference in the allotment of chak proceeding is very limited. If there are proper reason and there is consideration of the claim and convenience/inconvenience of both sides, then this Court may not be in a position to enquire into various factual aspects acting as Court of fact but at the same time, if reasons are lacking, analysis is not there and no ground is given for accepting the claim of one side and for not accepting the claim of other side, then it will be difficult for this Court to ascertain the merits in the claim. Correctness of Lhe conclusion is always to be tested by analysis and reasons given in the order. 8. Here is the case where perusal of the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation makes it clear that two revisions of the respondent was allowed on just mere asking. Claim of revisionist is mentioned and then it has been said that it is justified and deserved to be accepted. Petitioner has taken various ground in this Court which relates to depriving of irrigation facility besides other arguments. Deputy Director, Consolidation is the last Court who is empowered to balance the equity between parties. If situation so warrants, he can make spot inspection also. As the judgment of Deputy Director Consolidation lacks required consideration and no proper reason/findings are there, this Court is of the view that if the Deputy Director Consolidation is asked to take fresh decision giving adequate opportunity to both sides, keeping in mind the observation as made then that will be in the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation is hereby quashed. Revision is directed to be revived for disposal on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides with all expedition, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. .