JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.D. Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.L. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel. 2. As the pleadings are complete, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being finally decided. There is also no dispute about certain facts and therefore, brief narration would suffice. 3. Prem Das, the father of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 was the owner and in possession of the holding No. 1895 and after his death, the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 became heirs and joint owner of the said holding valued at 690.62 paisa, having1/4th share each. The Consolidation Officer, divided the aforesaid chak into four parts. Respondents No. 2 was not satisfied with the order of Consolidation Officer and as such he preferred an appeal claiming that he should be given his entire holding on plot No. 1530 and further he be given full valuation of the said plot and holding of respondent No. 2 was incorrectly valued, inasmuch, as holding of the respondent No. 2 was adjacent to the road side which was valued at lessor price whereas, petitioner holding was allotted far away from main road and valued at more price. 4. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that Settlement Officer Consolidation vide its order dated 3.3.2006 reduced the area allotted to the petitioner by 29% which is in violation of the provisions of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. It is further argued that no prior permission of the Director of Consolidation was taken prior to reduction of the area of the petitioner by more than 25% and thus it is argued that the order cannot be sustained in law. It is further argued that against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 03.03.2006, revision was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the impugned order. 5. The only submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that area of the petitioner has been reduced by more than 25% which is not permissible under Section 19 of U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, unless there is strong reasons for the same and permission of the Director of Consolidation has been obtained. 5. The only submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that area of the petitioner has been reduced by more than 25% which is not permissible under Section 19 of U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, unless there is strong reasons for the same and permission of the Director of Consolidation has been obtained. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that neither any strong reasons existed nor stated in the order impugned and further no permission has been sought by Director of Consolidation before passing the order impugned whereby holding of the petitioner has been reduced by 29%. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgement of this Court reported in 2005 (98) RD 529, Mohd. Hanif and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Siddharth Nagar and others in support of his contention. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as possession, orders impugned, reducing the area of the petitioner has been passed, which Judgements cannot be held to be illegal in any manner. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that equitable aspect was justified by the learned revisional Court. 7. In view of the facts and submissions, mentioned above Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as revisional Court have reduced the area by more than 25% without there being any strong reasons for the same and without there being any permission sought or granted by the Director of Consolidation and which order has been affirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. Perusal of the order impugned makes it apparent that although some reasons are sought to be mentioned for passing the said order but it can be said that the same has travelled beyond statutory mandate as contained in Section 19 of the Act which provides that there should be no variation of area by more than 25% except for cogent reasons and that too by the permission of the Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to state here that equity is to be adjusted by the revisional Court by keeping in mind the balance of convenience of parties concerned. It is pertinent to state here that equity is to be adjusted by the revisional Court by keeping in mind the balance of convenience of parties concerned. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, being last Court in the matter, has to adhere to the balance of convenience and equitable aspect by giving serious considerations and by doing that adjustment in the manner that may suit both the parties as per law. In the opinion of this Court, that Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order impugned without keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect and ignoring the statutory provisions of law as contained in the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act and thus the matters needs to be adjudicated a fresh by revisional Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall consider the respective claims of the parties, keeping in mind that spot situation as well as statutory provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 9. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Judgement and order dated 30.6.2006 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to revisional Court to decide the same afresh as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court. 10. It is made clear that that the revisional Court shall not allow any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties unless it is required for very compelling reasons. 11. There is no order as to costs. ————