S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri Tripathi B. C. Bhai, learned Advocate who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Sabhapati Tiwari, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent. 2. Challenge is to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondent was allowed and necessary changes in the chak of the parties has been made. 3. Proceedings are under section 20 of U. P. C. H. Act which relates to the allotment of plots in the chak of the parties. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as on acceptance of claim of one side that is to cause discomfort to other, and therefore, this Court is to see that whether the last Court while adjusting the chak of the parties has considered the matter in accordance with law and whether there is any violation of section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act. 4. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in plot No. 857 petitioner has his well which has been taken away by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by making wrong observation, although appellate authority by making correct observation allotted that plot in the chak of the petitioner. Plot No. 856 was to be given in the chak of the respondent or there may be other consideration but so far plot No. 857 is concerned private source of irrigation being there, amendment in the chak will be clearly against the mandate of section 19 of U. P. C. H. Act. Submission is that finding that well which is in plot No. 856 belongs to Gulabi Devi is factually incorrect and is against the record and therefore, matter needs fresh attention. 5. Sri Tiwari, learned Advocate to oppose the aforesaid, submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation after making spot inspection gave a finding that well which is in plot No. 857 belongs to Gulabi Devi and therefore, that finding is to be accepted and if that is accepted then no fault can be found in the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that Gulabi Devi is the owner of Plot No. 857 in which Pacca Well is mentioned in CH Form 2-A. At the same time petitioner has brought on record order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6. 1. 1988 in which in plot No. 857 after mentioning a Pacca well its valuation was fixed as Rs. 3,000/=. Plot No. 857 belonged to the petitioner. There is no finding by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the well is situated at the border of plot No. 857 and that the well in question is the same well which is shown in plot No. 856 which belongs to Gulabi Devi. Deputy Director of Consolidation will have to find out that if this is the situation that well is the same which is mentioned in plot No. 857 then how both situations will be reconciled, i. e. the well and its valuation by the order or the Consolidation Officer, referred above. If contention of petitioner side that he has private source of irrigation in plot No. 857 is found to be correct then no fault may be found in the adjustment made by the appellate authority but if contention of respondent is correct then he could be disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. On the facts, keeping in mind the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6. 1. 1988 by which pima facie existence of well in plot No. 857 is established this Court is of the view that Deputy Director of Consolidation will have to attend the matter afresh looking into situation and claim of the parties in relation to their placement in the light of the well. It will always be open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to again make spot inspection and to prepare inspection memo so that that may be a guiding factor for deciding the claim of parties. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Revisional Court is hereby quashed. The Revisional Court is directed to revive the revision to its original number and to decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. .