JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, DDC) dated 18.9.2006, whereby Revision No. 739 filed by Sanjeev Kumar, respondent no. 5, and Revision No. 740 filed by Manoj Kumar, respondent no. 4, have been allowed, disturbing the chak of the petitioners. 2. I have heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, as also Sri Jai Singh Chandel, who appears for the contesting respondents. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the dispute basically pertains to plot nos. 318 and 320. These plots were original holding of one Gurumukh Singh who transferred his entire holding in favour of one Lallu Singh, son of Chhajju Singh, who in turn, sold the same to the petitioners. At the Consolidation Officer (for short, CO) stage, Gurumukh singh was proposed a very small area of plot nos. 318 and 320 in his chak. Even though plot no. 318 was his largest holding, having an area of 1.253 hectares, wherein his one-fourth share amounted to 0.313 hectares. 4. Aggrieved by the said proposal, Lallu Singh, the transferee of Gurumukh Singh, filed an objection. The Consolidation Officer decided several objections by a common order, and, in the process, excluded plot nos. 318 and 320 from his chak and allotted udan chak over plot nos. 264/1, etc. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, Lallu Singh preferred an appeal No. 93, under section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, SOC) by his order dated 16.8.2004 allowed the appeal of Lalu Singh allotting him all areas of plot nos. 319 and 320, which had been allotted in the chak of the contesting respondents Sanjeev Kumar, as also Manoj Kumar, who are real brothers. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order, Manoj Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar preferred a revision. Even Lallu Singh, not fully satisfied with the appellate order, preferred revision no. 743. 7. The DDC by the impugned order allowed the revision and reversed that passed by the SOC. The revision of Lallu Singh was dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners, who are transferees from Lallu singh, had preferred two writ petitions. Even Lallu Singh, not fully satisfied with the appellate order, preferred revision no. 743. 7. The DDC by the impugned order allowed the revision and reversed that passed by the SOC. The revision of Lallu Singh was dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners, who are transferees from Lallu singh, had preferred two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 70493 of 2006 has been filed against the order allowing the revisions of the contesting respondents, while Writ Petition No. 70496 of 2006 has been filed against the order whereby the revision filed by Lallu Singh was dismissed. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 70493 of 2006 is concerned, it is to be noted that SOC had allowed the appeal of Lallu Singh on the reasoning that he was allotted a chak on his original holdings of plot nos. 319 and 320, etc. where the contesting respondents, Sanjeev Kumar and Manoj Kumar, had been allotted a udan chak while the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest had been allotted a chak on their original holding on plot no. 381/1 and 326/1, etc. It was in view of this fact that the chaks were modified interchanging these plots and allotting them to the original holders thereof. 8. The DDC in his judgement of reversal has neither referred to the reasoning recorded by the SOC nor given a contrary finding. 9. Before the revisional court, both Sanjeev Kumar and Manoj Kumar had prayed that they be allotted chaks on their original holdings or a chak adjacent to that allotted to chak-holder no. 315. It is on this reasoning alone that the revisions have been allowed. The case of the petitioners or the injury that might be suffered by them on account of the proposed adjacent chak has not at all been considered by the DDC in his judgement of reversal.It was incumbent upon the revisional court to have considered the reasons recorded by the SOC which modifying the chak of the parties in his judgement of reversal. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 (in WP No. 70493 of 2006) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, I allow WP No. 70493 of 2006, set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed in revision nos. 739 and 740 (annexure - 7 to the writ petition) and remand the matter to the DDC, Meerut, to pass fresh order after hearing the parties. 11. Accordingly, I allow WP No. 70493 of 2006, set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed in revision nos. 739 and 740 (annexure - 7 to the writ petition) and remand the matter to the DDC, Meerut, to pass fresh order after hearing the parties. Needless to say, this exercise may be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 12. In so far as WP No. 70496 of 2006 is concerned, herein the DDC has rejected the revision on the ground that the prayer in the revision is for allotment of the entire original holding existing on plot nos. 335 and 336, which is not possible as such a demand would render consolidation operations an impossibility. However, in view of the fact that the other Writ Petition No. 70493 of 2006, filed by the petitioners, is being allowed and the matter is being remanded to the DDC, it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 18.9.2006 also, which is impugned in WP No. 70496 of 2006 and the DDC be directed to re-consider this revision also. 13. Accordingly. WP No. 70496 of 2006 is also allowed The impugned order dated 18.9.2006 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the DDC to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. Even this exercise may be completed within a period of 4 months, as indicated above.