JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Onkar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd of January, 2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in her favour has been set aside. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed an objection under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer on 6th of July, 2004, whereby he demanded to carve out the chak of Gata No. 343 instead of Gata Nos. 68 and 69, on the ground that he has not been allotted the chak over the Gata No. 343 as per his share allotted to him in mutual partition dealt between the co-sharers. Since the amendment was made by the Consolidation Officer himself, he did not enter in the objection and observed that against the amended order the remedy is appeal. Under the circumstances the opposite party No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation with the same demand that he should be allotted the compact chak over the Gata No. 343 instead of Gata Nos. 68 and 69. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by means of order dated 20th of October, 2004 dismissed the appeal on the ground that Gata No. 343 is situated at Pakka Sadak and according to the valuation of the land all the tenure holders have been allotted the chak by maintaining equitable balance according to the valuation of the land. He further observed that the appellant has been allotted the chak on his original Gata Nos. 68 and 69. So far as the allotment of chak on Gata No. 343 is concerned, he has also been allotted over there as per his share which is 1/6th. Since it is more valuable land and situste besides the road all the co-tenure holders have been allotted chak according to their share and other co-tenure holders are not interest to accept the chak on the other places. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation he filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the same. 3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation he filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation itself, it is evident that all those factors which were considered for allotment of chak to all the co-tenure holders as per their share over Gata No. 343 have not been considered and only just to adjust the chak of the opposite party No. 2, he has been allotted the chak over Gata No. 343. The petitioner who is also one of the co-tenure holders has completely been shifted from Gata No. 343, which is more valuable land and is situated besides the road. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is against the provisions of the U.P.C.H.Act and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that by allotment of a chak on different Gata, the opposite party No. 2 was allotted three chaks of smaller holdings, whereas Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act provides that the consolidation Scheme shall fulfill several conditions, one of which is that very tenure-holder may be allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding. Thus he submits that keeping in view the principles laid down under Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act the opposite party No. 2 has been allotted the chak by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 3rd of January, 2005, which does not suffer from error. 6. Upon perusal of the order impugned, I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to appreciate the fact that the land of Gata No. 343 is more valuable land and is situated besides the road and keeping in view this fact all the co-tenure holders have been allotted the chaks over this Gata as per their share. The opposite party No. 2 under the order of the Consolidation Officer was allotted only three chaks which is permissible under the law. The opposite party No. 2 under the order of the Consolidation Officer was allotted only three chaks which is permissible under the law. The Act also lays down one of the conditions for allotment of chak in fulfillment of consolidation scheme i.e. the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions, if any, made on account of contributions to public purposes under this Act, should be in equal to the valuation of plots originally held by him, whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allotment of chak has completely washed out the aforesaid condition, thus keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation wants interference by this Court, therefore, being not sustainable, I hereby quash it. The position of chaks under the order of the Consolidation Officer is maintained. In the result the writ petition is allowed. ————