JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner’s original chak was chak No. 354. Respondent No. 4 Ramji was chak holder of chak No. 478 and respondent No. 6 Lalji was chak holder No. 559. The respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are admittedly co-sharers and Arazi Nos. 109 and 134 are their original holdings alongwith other plots. So far original holding of the petitioner are plot Nos. 98, 99, 100, 140, 142 alongwith one plot No. 135/2. The petitioner has demonstrated this by means of Annexure-1 which is C.H. Form 23. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was allotted two chaks, plot Nos. 117 and 118 situated adjacent to his original plot No. 99 and were included in the chak of the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is that plot No. 99 comprises of Abadi and he has also a private source of irrigation on the said plot. While allotment of chak, two plot Nos. 117 and 118 were allotted to the petitioner on a consideration that he had irrigation facility at the adjacent chak. Respondent No. 11 is also co-sharer of respondent Nos. 4 and 6 as such plot No. 135/2 situated between plot Nos. 109 and 134 was allotted in favour of respondent No. 11. The petitioner had no grievance at any stage from the arrangement made at the time of allotment of chak. However, respondent Nos. 4 and 6 being aggrieved by order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, demand of the said respondents was refused by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 17.8.1995. Several adjustments were made inter se amongst the respondents who are admittedly co-sharers, as a consequence, plot No. 135/2 was given to respondent No. 6 which was initially given to respondent No. 11. Two separate revisions were preferred by respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Memo of revisions are annexed as Annexures-11 and 12 to the counter-affidavit. 3. Several adjustments were made inter se amongst the respondents who are admittedly co-sharers, as a consequence, plot No. 135/2 was given to respondent No. 6 which was initially given to respondent No. 11. Two separate revisions were preferred by respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Memo of revisions are annexed as Annexures-11 and 12 to the counter-affidavit. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that after allotment of plot No. 135/2 to respondent No. 6 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, revision was preferred but there was no objection or demand whatsoever in respect of plots allotted to the petitioner i.e. plot Nos. 117 and 118. It is also pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that he was not even arrayed as a party in the revision. The entire dispute raised before the revisional Court was confined to the dispute between the respondents who are co-sharers inter se pertaining to plot No. 134 which was pending adjudication before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. The Deputy Director Consolidation by means of impugned order allotted petitioner’s plot Nos. 117 and 118 in favour of respondents and in lieu thereof plot No. 135/2 and some part of plot No. 134 was given to the petitioner. 4. Arguments of the petitioner’s counsel have been disputed by counsel for respondents. His submission is that respondent No. 4 claimed abolition of his chak from plot No. 134 which according to him was Uran chak. Respondent No. 4 claimed that allotment in his favour was adversely modified in appeal of respondent No. 11 and one Mangla. At the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation plot No. 90/3 adjacent to the road which was allotted to respondent No. 4, was taken away and, therefore, he made a demand for allotment of plot No. 90/3 and for exclusion of plot No. 134 from his chak. It is further submitted that chak of respondent No. 6 was wrongly affected by Settlement Officer Consolidation and, therefore, they had to file a revision and petitioner’s chak was altered by the Deputy Director Consolidation in revision of respondent No. 4 Ramji. While disputing the arguments on behalf of petitioner that chak of the petitioner has been altered without any notice or opportunity of hearing, is countered by counsel for respondents. While disputing the arguments on behalf of petitioner that chak of the petitioner has been altered without any notice or opportunity of hearing, is countered by counsel for respondents. He has argued that power under Section 48 of the Act is neither dependent on service of notice nor affording reasonable opportunity. Thus non impleadment of the petitioner in the revision as a party is immaterial. No loss has been caused to the petitioner and order of the Deputy Director Consolidation does not call for any interference whatsoever. 5. After hearing the respective counsels at length and going through judgments, I am in agreement with the submissions of the counsel for petitioner that the Deputy Director Consolidation while passing the impugned order and making adjustment has not even given an opportunity of hearing and has not even taken into consideration that source of irrigation was widely affected by his order, which is against all principles of equity. The Deputy Director Consolidation completely ignored the fact that there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise any grievance at any stage and if at all certain alterations were to be made, he was entitled to at least voice his grievance. The concerned authority should have taken into consideration that right of the petitioner would be considerably prejudiced as the source of irrigation will adversely affect his cultivation and entire purpose of the Act would stand frustrated. Having been displaced from the private source of irrigation, direction and guidelines under Section 19(i) (f) of the Act has completely been ignored. Argument on behalf of respondents that the petitioner was allotted more than double valuation is far-fetched argument which is not worth consideration. 6. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the order dated 26.4.2003 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation is not sustainable. The petitioner has been deprived of his rightful claim. Besides, it is also true that the proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer adjudicating controversy with regard to double entry of Arazi No. 134, passed an order on 29.1.2005 whereby entire area of Khata No. 273 was declared as non-ZA area. One Atwari Devi and respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was allowed vide order dated 30.8.2008. He has bifurcated the area of Khata Nos. One Atwari Devi and respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was allowed vide order dated 30.8.2008. He has bifurcated the area of Khata Nos. 2, 273, 293 and 2 (non-ZA area) having area .162 and .020 of Arazi No. 134. No revision was filed against the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.8.2008 and, therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has attained finality and the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation looses its significance. 7. In view of all these circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 26.4.2003 impugned in the instant writ petition is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back at the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the case afresh after giving notice to all the parties and affording them an opportunity of hearing. The parties shall continue in possession over the plots on which they are in possession today. The possession shall not be disturbed till the final adjudication is arrived at. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. ————