Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner - Kushum Devi is Chak Holder No. 319. Her late husband Dinesh Prasad was also recorded as one of the co-tenure holders of the Khata in question. In order to appreciate the controversy, suffice it to say, that the dispute relates to allotment of chaks under Section 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. A dispute between all the share-holders to the extent of the shares is already pending before the Consolidation Officer. 2. Chaks were proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer after proceeding to examine the objections that were filed in this regard came to the conclusion that there were about 25 plots scattered all over which were consolidated and the allotment was given at 9 places appropriately keeping in view the valuation of the land that was earlier possessed by the petitioner and the other co-tenure-holders. 3. 3. The Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection of the petitioner has recorded the following findings in the order dated 30.10.2002:- ^^blh pd esa [kkrsnkj Jherh dqlqek nsoh iRuh fnus’k izlkn dk Hkh uke gS] us i‘Fkd ls vkifRr ;ksftr dj ekWax dh gS fd xkVk la0 612 dk iwjk jdck ysdj pd fn;k tk;A 246 ij cuk pd 277 ds vykok pd ds lHkh uEcjku fudkys tk;A r‘rh; pd 1072 ij jdck vkSj c<+k;k tk;A xkVk la0 773 o 989 esa pd fn;k tk;A vkBoha rd 272 vkfn ij cuk gS lekIr fd;k tk;A 1007 ij pd fn;k tk; xkVk la0 696 ij u;k pd iznku fd;k tk;A xkVk la0 433 ij cuh pd lekIr fd;k tk;A 532] 650] 651 ij pd fn;k tk;A i{kksa dks lquk x;kA vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd pd la0 319 esa eq0 c‘tjkuh dqWoj ckck nqcjkt] vo/ks’k iq= n’kjFk o vuUrjke fnus’k izlkn iq=x.k jkenkl o f’kouanu o‘tuanu iq=x.k lR; ujk;u] dapu flag] dju flag] dq.kky flag iq=x.k j?kq uanu lqesj flag lqjs’k flag lqjsUnz flag vuwi flag iq=x.k dUgbZ izlkn dqcsj flag deys’k flag iq=x.k pUnzHkku fuoklh xzke ds uke vafdr gSA brus [kkrsnkjksa esa ls dsoy nks [kkrsnkj f’kouanu o dqlqe nsoh us vkifRr ;ksftr dh gSA vU; [kkrsnkj lquokbZ ds le; gkftj ughsa vk;s vkSj u gh dksbZ fojks/ki= gh izLrqr fd;kA blls Li"V gS fd og cus pd ls larq"V gSA tgkW rd [kkrsnkjksa dk 8 pd cuk;s tkus dk iz’u gS] ewy [kkrs dk cVokjk u gksus ds dkj.k budh la;qDr tksr 527-83 gksrh gS] ftudk pkj pdksa ds :i esa lek;kstu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk 25 ewy xkVs xzke esa nwj&nwj fo[kjs gq, vyx vyx gkj ds xkVs gSA dqN xkVs lhfer {ks= ds varxZr gS ftlij T;knk ls T;knk ekfy;r lsDVj ls vf/kd iznku ughsa fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn fd;k tkrk gS rks mRrjoknh tks ewyij cSBs gSa mudk pd mM+ku gks tk;sxk nwj nwj fo[kjs fofHkUu gkj ds tksr dk /;ku esa j[krs gq, de ls de 8 LFkku ij gh lek;ksftr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn lHkkh [kkrsnkjksa ds e/; cVokjk gks x;k gksrk rks de ls de :[kkcanh ds vuqlkj ;fn ,d pd fn;k tkrk rks 15 [kkrsnkj ds lkis{k 15 pd LokHkkfod :i ls cu tkrs tcfd 15 pd ds lkis{k 9 cukdj fdlh izdkj dh Hkwy ugha fd x;h gSA ;g pd ekSdk o vfHkys[k ds HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, cuk;k x;k gSA pdksa esa lek;kstu u;h egRoiw.kZ ekWx xkVk la0 696 ij /;ku nsrs gq, 2 ch?kk dk pd iznku fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk izFke ekWax ds vuqlkj xkVk la0 200] 22 o 23 ij cus pd ekWax ds vuqlkj mRrj ls nf{k.k fn;k tkrk gSA vU; ekWaxksa ds vk/kkj ij pd dk lek;kstu djuk laHko ughsa gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa cVokjk gks tkus ij [kkrsnkjksa dh ekWax ds vuqlkj pd dh la[;k c<+us ls ekWaxksa dh iwfrZ dh tk ldrh gSA rnuqlkj nksuks vkifRr;ksa dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner contended that the largest holding is over plot no. 612 and therefore that should be retained and that she has been given Udan Chak over plot No. 262 and 438 which should be abolished and she should be restored over her original holdings over plot nos. 1006, 1062, 650 and 651. 5. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 18.11.2003 in favour of the petitioner restoring the claim of the petitioner over plot No. 612. The appellate authority while disposing of the appeal recorded the following findings:- ^^vihykfFkZuh dqlqeknsoh iRuh fnus’k izlkn us vihy esa ;kpuk dh gS fd 436 vkfn ij cuk pd lekIr djds ,oa 277 vkfn ij cus pd ls 277 dk jdok NksM+dj 'ks"k ekfy;r fudky dj 696 vkfn ij cus pd dk iwjk jdok ysdj pd fn;k tk;A nwljh vihy esa ;kpuk gS fd 247 vkfn ejok Hkwfe ij cus pd ls jdok de djds 916 ij cus pd esa 696 esa cus pd essaa lek;ksftr fd;k tk;A mRrjoknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd ekax mfpr ughsa gS vihy [kkfjt dh tk;A vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd vihykfFkZuh dk ejok essa va’k ls T;knk jdok ysdj pd fn;k x;k gS] blfy, ejok gkj ls cus pd ls 39-73 ewY;kadu dk jdok dkVdj flaxok gkj esa xkVk la0 612 vkfn ij ewY;kadu lek;ksftr fd;k tkrk gSA ftlls pd la0 99 o 483 izHkkfor gksrs gSaA^^ 6. The appellate court held that the petitioner was entitled to be restored over her ‘Singwa quality land’ by adjusting the valuation. 7. Dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision and another revision was preferred by one Ram Naresh against the aforesaid modification made by the appellate authority. Both the revisions were decided. The revision filed by the petitioner was rejected holding that almost all the chaks have been allotted over original holdings and on account of non-distribution of shares amongst the co-sharers of the same Khata, and demarcation thereof, has resulted in the joint allotment which if dismembered would in turn disturb a large number of other tenure-holders. The revision filed by Ram Naresh was allowed with allotment over plot no. 612. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that both Ram Naresh and the petitioner have been equitably adjusted and that Ram Naresh had been given a Udan Chak over plot no. 272 which was unjustified. The revision filed by Ram Naresh was allowed with allotment over plot no. 612. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that both Ram Naresh and the petitioner have been equitably adjusted and that Ram Naresh had been given a Udan Chak over plot no. 272 which was unjustified. The said findings have been recorded in the impugned order dated 24.3.2011 in revision no. 106 of 2003-04. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pal contended that the petitioner’s restoration over plot no. 612 by the SOC has been wrongly upturned and that the respondent no. 4 is a small tenure-holder who does not deserve the relocation as claimed by him. 9. From a perusal of the decision in the revision of Ram Naresh, it is evident that no objections were filed in the said revision. Apart from this, the petitioner and another co-tenure holder had only filed objections whereas the majority of the co-sharers had not filed any objection to the allotment proceedings as recorded by the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 30.10.2002. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that low quality of land has been allotted to the petitioner as against the high valuation of land of ‘Singwa quality’ and therefore, the minor adjustment which was made by the SOC ought not to have been disturbed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, the argument on behalf of the respondents led by Sri Rajesh Ji Verma and Sri Aniruddh Chaturvedi is to the effect that the petitioner is yet to get her share defined and she will be allotted her land accordingly as observed by the authorities when the share is allotted. 12. So far as the overall allotment is concerned, the same has been done in accordance with valuation, and if the petitioner’s claim of restoration of entire area over plot no. 612 is accepted then the other small tenure-holders like Ram Naresh and others would be deprived of good quality of land. It is for this reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly recorded that the respondent Ram Naresh had been wrongly given a Udan Chak over plot No. 272. Apart from this, the Settlement Officer Consolidation also, except for the minor adjustment, held that if any further adjustment is attempted the same would disturb a large number of other allotments. It is for this reason that the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly recorded that the respondent Ram Naresh had been wrongly given a Udan Chak over plot No. 272. Apart from this, the Settlement Officer Consolidation also, except for the minor adjustment, held that if any further adjustment is attempted the same would disturb a large number of other allotments. The claim of the petitioner of allotment over plot no. 612 is only to the extent of her share which does not bring about any significant change in the allotment made. Even if the petitioner is affected then it shall be only to the extent of her minor share which can be sorted out at the time of bifurcation of shares before the Consolidation Officer that is stated to be pending adjudication. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer as referred to hereinabove in detail indicates, that as far as possible the original holdings have been retained and the plots which were scattered at 25 places, have been consolidated at 9 places. Thus, consolidation has taken place and the petitioner is a co-sharer along with others whose shares are yet to be determined in a dispute before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner can obviously claim her share according to low quality of land allotted in the proceedings which are pending before the Consolidation Officer, for which the consolidation of the area should not be held up on the demand raised by the petitioner. Apart from this, there is no manifest injustice or error on record which may require any interference in the allotment proceedings at this stage when the parties are yet to get their shares defined in the objections which are pending before the Consolidation Officer. 14. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and is hereby dismissed. (Petition dismissed) _____________