Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— (1) Heard Sri K.M. Dubey learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Onkar Pandey learned counsel for opposite parties. (2) This writ petition has been filed by Ram Lakhan @ Ram Lakshan, Babloo Lal son of Bhagauti, Raja Ram son of Bhaguti, Manoj Kumar son of Ram Nihal and Ram Bali (a minor)under guardianship of Smt. Phool Kala wife of Ram Nihal for quashing the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by opposite party no.1 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (3) It has been averred in the writ petition that petitioners are the original tenure holders of Plot Nos. 782, 796, 989 situated at Village-Gundhaur Pargana Paschim rath, Tahsil-Bikapur District- Faizabad. Petitioners were allotted chaks at this stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was amended at the stage of Consolidation Officer on the basis of villagers objections. Petitioners were not aggrieved by this arrangement. Later on, Ram Achal (died during the pendency of the writ petition) preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2006 which was numbered as an appeal no.387 impleading Bhagauti and other including Ram Padarath and petitioner no.1, (Ram Lakhan). That appeal was dismissed with reasoned order on 2.5.2006. Bhagauti had died about 10 years earlier and Ram Padarath had died about 5 years earlier and opposite party no.2 (Ram Achal) has not substituted their legal heirs so the case was conducted upto the stage of D.D.C. Faizabad against the dead persons. Petitioners were never served any notice upto stage of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and petitioner nos. 2 to 5 were also not served upto the proceeding before D.D.C. Plot No.796 is situated on the border of the village towards east and just thereafter is metal road and for this reason all three branches were adjusted on plot no.796. (4) Ram Achal has purchased share of Kaushal Kishor Singh and Brij Kishor Singh only, in plot no.797 area 0.540 in the year 2001. The private source of irrigation of Ram Achal is situated in his original holding plot no.1013 where he was allotted a single chak No.571 and after the purchase of the land in plot no.797 he was provided a second chak no.444. The private source of irrigation of Ram Achal is situated in his original holding plot no.1013 where he was allotted a single chak No.571 and after the purchase of the land in plot no.797 he was provided a second chak no.444. D.D.C. disturbed the chak of petitioners on the basis of private source of irrigation of Ram Achal and he was adjusted from the total area of the petitioners in plot no.797 and Ram Achal was given 0.540 on plot no.797 while his share was only his share was only 0.006. (5) Counter affidavit was filed denying the allegations in the writ petition and it was mentioned that A.C.O. proposed three chaks to him without any power so an objection was filed before Consolidation Officer and a demand was made to allot convenient chak in place of three chaks but this demand was not granted then an appeal was preferred before S.O.C. and appeal was also dismissed. The order passed by D.D.C. is not ex parte, petitioners were allotted chaks on their original holding in Gata nos. 782 and 989 and after allotment of chaks by D.D.C. they have also been allotted chak on their original gatas D.D.C. order is according to law. The sources of irrigation in plot no.797 is only source of irrigation for him. At the stage of A.C.O. he was allotted area 0.498 and 0.42 over plot no.797 and D.D.C. increased 0.006 including the area on plot no.796. (6) It is not in dispute that original plot no.796 .0089 and 0.0038 total area .0127 was allotted to Ram Lakhan petitioner while his share was 0.347 in original plot no.796. At the stage of Consolidation Officer the total area of plot no.796 allowed to him remained 0.127 and another plot no.782 area 0.278 was allotted to him. Likewise Raja Ram was allotted area 0.100 in plot no.796 at A.C.O. stage and it remained the same at the Consolidation Officer stage Manoj Kumar, Ram Bali were allotted area 0.100 of 796. At the stage of Consolidation Officer area remained the same and at the stage of appeal S.O.C. has not disturbed the area allotted to the petitioner on plot no.796 and has specifically rejected the contention of Ram Achal that his total chak be allotted at plot no.797 as there is no Bachat land or Khalihan adjacent to the plot. At the stage of Consolidation Officer area remained the same and at the stage of appeal S.O.C. has not disturbed the area allotted to the petitioner on plot no.796 and has specifically rejected the contention of Ram Achal that his total chak be allotted at plot no.797 as there is no Bachat land or Khalihan adjacent to the plot. At the stage D.D.C. this aspect was not considered and the entire area allotted to petitioners from plot no.796 was taken away and was allotted to Ram Achal. (7) It has been averred that plot no.797 is situated at the border of village towards east and just thereafter is a metal road. (8) In the case of Mohar Singh & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut & Ors. 2012(115) RD 782, Smt. Ram Saji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur 2010(109) RD745, Keshav Ram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti 2012(115) RD 719 this court has held that allotment of land during consolidation portion is carried out to adjust equity and if a land is adjacent to the road or any plot is a roadside land then it ought to have been distributed amongst all share holders according to their share. (9) In this case, this has not been done by the D.D.C. The roadside land of the petitioners have been given to Ram Achal alone and the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of their roadside land. In view of this the equities has been disturbed. Ram Achal has purchased only small share and he has been allotted the entire area of plot no.796 without considering the hardship of the petitioners. In view of this the order passed by D.D.C. Faizabad is liable to be quashed. (10) This writ petition is hereby allowed. Order passed by D.D.C. dated 13.11.2007 is quashed and order passed by S.O.C. dated 25.2.2006 is upheld. _____________