JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri B.L. Mishra for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma for respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.5.2011 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. Plot nos. 400 and 596 were the original holdings of the petitioners and their cosharers. Two of the cosharers were proposed chaks on plot no.400 and two of the coshares were proposed chak on plot no.596. No one filed any objection against the proposed chaks of the petitioners as such their chaks were confirmed. 4. However, Smt. Shiv Kumari purchased a share in plot no.596 from other cosharer of the petitioners. By an earlier order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.1.2011 Smt. Shiv Kumari was allotted chak on plot nos. 389, 390, etc. She filed a writ petition Consolidation No.159 of 2011 in which she had demanded chak on plot nos. 596 and 511, claiming her original holding, while Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted uran chak to her on plot nos. 389, 390 and 391. On this ground the writ petition was allowed and the mater was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision on merit. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 26.5.2011 found that plot no.510 was the original holding of Bindeshwari Prasad which was the road side land. Therefore, this plot has been wrongly allotted in the chak of Smt. Shiv Kumari. Accordingly, it was found that plot no.510 was liable to be allotted in the chak of Bindeshwari Prasad. While Smt. Shiv Kumari, who was allotted chak on plot no.510 was allotted chak on plot no.596, disturbed the chaks of Israil and Zuber, the petitioners. . Hence, this writ petition has been filed by Israil and Zuber. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that plot no.596 was the original holding of Israil and Zuber and their two other cosharers having their total ½ share jointly. Two of the cosharers were allotted chaks on other original holding on plot no.400 while Zuber and Israil were allotted chaks on plot no.596. No one has filed any objection against the proposed chaks of the petitioners and their chaks have been confirmed. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed their chaks. Two of the cosharers were allotted chaks on other original holding on plot no.400 while Zuber and Israil were allotted chaks on plot no.596. No one has filed any objection against the proposed chaks of the petitioners and their chaks have been confirmed. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally disturbed their chaks. He submits that some area of plot no.596 was allotted in the chak of Smt. Patna Devi as uran chak on this place. In case Smt. Shiv Kumari was claiming her original holding on plot no.596 chak of Smt. Patna Devi was liable to be disturbed and not the chaks of the petitioners. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbing the chaks of the petitioners is illegal. 6. In reply to the aforesaid argument the counsel for Bindeshwari Prasad submits that plot no.510 was the original holding of Bindeshwari Prasad being his largest part of holding situated on road side, he was entitled to entire area of this plot in his chak but Smt. Shiv Kumari was illegally allotted chak on plot no.510. Plot no.511 was the orginal holding of Smt. Shiv Kumari on which her sister Smt. Janak Lali was allotted chak as such she cannot claim chak on plot no.510. In such circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allotted plot no.510 in the chak of Bindeshwari Prasad and the chak of Bindeshwari Prasad is not liable to be disturbed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 8. A perusal of the record shows that no one has filed any objections against the chaks of Israil and Zuber and their chaks on plot no.596 etc. were confirmed, which was their original holding. On the other hand there was a dispute between Bindeshwari Prasad and Smt. Shiv Kumari. Smt. Shiv Kumari claimed allotment of chak on plot no.511 and 596 while area of plot no.511 was allotted in chak of her sister Janak Lali and area of plot no.596 was allotted in the chak of Smt. Patna Devi. But Deputy Director of Consolidation has not disturbed the chak of either Janak Lali or Smt. Patna Devi. 9. Smt. Shiv Kumari claimed allotment of chak on plot no.511 and 596 while area of plot no.511 was allotted in chak of her sister Janak Lali and area of plot no.596 was allotted in the chak of Smt. Patna Devi. But Deputy Director of Consolidation has not disturbed the chak of either Janak Lali or Smt. Patna Devi. 9. So far as the claim of Bindeshwari Prasad for allotment of chak on plot no.510 is concerned, this plot being road side land, the claim of Bindeshwari Prasad was liable to be accepted but as by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation chaks of other chak holders were also disturbed as such it is no possible for this Court to pass any final order. In such circumstances the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.5.2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision of Bindeshwari Prasad afresh in accordance with law as well a taking into consideration the observation made above. 10. Since the matter is lingering for quite long time the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after hearing the parties.