Vikram Nath, J.;- By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders of the three consolidation courts dated 25.9.1986, 7.4.1988 and 2.12.1995. 2. Khata No.92, Village Hasanpur Lohari, Pargana Thana Bhawan, Tahsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar comprised of four plots 2481, 2482, 2488 and 2490 (hereinafter referred to as the Khata in dispute). In the consolidation proceedings after compulsory deductions the area which remained for allotment from khata in dispute was 8-17-0. One Karam Singh was the original tenure holder of the said khata. He had three sons Kala Ram, Tam Tikaya and Ram Narain. Kala Ram died issueless and his share devolved upon Ram Tikaya and his heirs. Thus, Ram Tikaya and his heirs became share holder of 2/3 share in Khata in dispute. Remaining 1/3 share of khata in dispute belongs to Ram Narain son of Karam Singh and was inherited by his son Satnam Singh the petitioner in this petition. After the death of Ram Tikaya his three sons Divan Chand, Jogendra and Mahendra inherited. Divan Chand is arrayed as respondent no.4. Jogender arrayed as respondent no.5 and as Mahendra had died his four sons Praveen, Raju, Kaka and Sanjay are arrayed as respondent no. 6 to 9. 3. In the provisional consolidation scheme petitioner was not allotted any area from the khata in dispute. He filed objections claiming that the plots comprising the khata in dispute was the largest original holding and as the petitioner had his private source of irrigation and also a room constructed in Plot No.2488 he may be allotted a chak over his 1/3rd share in the khata in dispute. The said objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.9.1986 and he allotted a chak to the petitioner over plots 2474, 2479, 2480, 2481 and 2482 for an area measuring 01-13-12. The petitioner filed an appeal on the same ground as his objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming further area in khata in dispute specially plot no.2488. Three other appeals were filed by Lal Singh, Divan Chand (respondent no.4) and Om Prakash. The Settlement Officer Consolidation partly allowed all the four appeals vide order dated 7.4.1988 and abolished the chak allotted to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer over Plot Nos. 2474, 2479, 2480, 2481 and 2482 and allotted the same to Divan Chand (respondent no.4). Three other appeals were filed by Lal Singh, Divan Chand (respondent no.4) and Om Prakash. The Settlement Officer Consolidation partly allowed all the four appeals vide order dated 7.4.1988 and abolished the chak allotted to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer over Plot Nos. 2474, 2479, 2480, 2481 and 2482 and allotted the same to Divan Chand (respondent no.4). Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 2.12.1995. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai, assisted by Sri P.K. Rai and Sri Vidya Bhushan, Advocates for the petitioner, Sri G.N. Verma, Advocate representing some of the respondents and Sri C.S. Agnihotri, Advocate representing some of the other respondents. 5. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the four plots of khata in dispute were road side plots and the petitioner had been totally deprived of any allotment over the same. It has further been argued that his co-sharers who are the respondents 4 to 9 had been allotted a large area over the four plots of the khata in dispute. In these circumstances it has been prayed that the orders by the courts below be set aside and the petitioner be allotted a chak over the plots comprising the khata in dispute as per his share which is 1/3rd in the khata in dispute. It has also been urged that the four plots of the khata in dispute were the largest holding of the petitioner and as such he was entitled to allotment over the same. It has also been urged that the petitioner has been deprived of his private source of irrigation and the pakka room constructed by him over the plot no.2488. 6. On the other hand it has been submitted by Sri G.N. Verma and Sri C.S. Agnihotri, learned counsel representing the respondent co-sharers that the petitioner had never set up a claim that the plots of the khata in dispute were road side plots and it is for the first time that in the writ petition this case has been set up. They have submitted that it was on account of subsequent development of the chak road that the petitioner started claiming a chak over the plots of the khata in dispute. They have submitted that it was on account of subsequent development of the chak road that the petitioner started claiming a chak over the plots of the khata in dispute. It is also submitted that the respondents had been allotted area lesser than their share over the land comprising of the khata in dispute and therefore, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents. It has further been submitted that the petitioner already had a chak over his original holding which is close to the abadi and therefore, no alteration need be made at this stage. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been given due valuation in lieu of the tubewell (private source of irrigation) and pakka room as such no prejudice is caused to him. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petition was filed in the year 1996 but no interim order was granted to the petitioner and it is only after about 10 years that an interim order was passed on 2.3.2005 and again on 16.5.2005. In this period between 1996 and 2005 the respondents have alienated part of the land allotted over the plots comprising the khata in dispute and the subsequent purchasers have constructed houses. In the circumstances it has been submitted that at this stage no interference is warranted in view of the long settlement of the allotment of the chaks and subsequent interest of 3rd parties having been created not only by way of alienation but also on account of raising constructions. 7. In rejoinder it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although it is true that sale deeds had been executed and constructions had been raised but still a substantial area of the land comprising of khata no.92 is available on the spot and as such the matter may be remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider the case afresh. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had dismissed the revision only on the ground that in case the petitioner's claim for allotment of bye-pass road is allowed the shape of the chak of the respondents Divan Chand, chakdar no.296 would be disturbed and would become multi cornered. 8. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had dismissed the revision only on the ground that in case the petitioner's claim for allotment of bye-pass road is allowed the shape of the chak of the respondents Divan Chand, chakdar no.296 would be disturbed and would become multi cornered. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced, in the opinion of the Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for allotment over the plots comprising of his largest holding and which was by the side of the bye-pass road as recorded in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It may be true that the petitioner may not have raised a ground that the plots of khata in dispute were by the side of the bye-pass road but nevertheless once it had come to the knowledge of the Deputy Director of Consolidation he ought to have considered the same and ought not to have brushed it aside casually. 9. The concept and scheme of consolidation is to do equitable justice between the parties. In case there was a holding jointly held by several persons and such holding had special potential, it ought to have been equitably adjusted. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that they had been allotted lesser area than their shares over plot in the khata in dispute and as such they cannot be deprived of the area allotted to them and the petitioner may recover it from the other parties to whom chaks had been allotted over the land of the khata in dispute, cannot be accepted as equity is to be adjusted between the parties. If the Consolidation Officer had allotted some area from the plots of the khata in dispute, which was land of special potential apart from being the largest holding of the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 9, there was no justification for the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to abolish the said chak and allot it again to the respondents who already held a chak by the road side in the plots comprising the khata in dispute. The claim of respondents similarly could have been considered from the other tenure holders who are not co-sharers in the khata in dispute but were allotted a chak over the land of the khata in dispute. 10. The claim of respondents similarly could have been considered from the other tenure holders who are not co-sharers in the khata in dispute but were allotted a chak over the land of the khata in dispute. 10. Further the Court is of the view that the sale deeds already executed up to this date, would not be affected by this order and the constructions already raised would also not be affected by this order as the sale deeds were executed by the respondents for value and at the time when there was no interim order by this Court and further the purchasers have already raised constructions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation at this stage can only consider whether a chak of proportionate area available on the plots comprising of the khata in dispute by the road side can be allotted to the petitioner or not. For the said purpose he will have to get a survey carried out and also make a spot inspection and only thereafter pass appropriate orders. 11. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2.12.1995 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in the light of the observations made above. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.