JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.: - Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite the case having been called in revised, though the name of Sri J.C. Srivastava has been shown in the case list as counsel for respondents. 2. The dispute raised in this writ petition is in regard to allotment of chaks under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953"). Petitioner originally held 1/8 share in plots no. 415, 421, 431, 662 and 468 comprising of an area of 1 bigha 19 biswa taken in consolidation scheme. The residential house of petitioner, it is said, was situated in plot no. 420 and plot not. 421 adjoined the above plot. Plot No. 415 and 416 were adjoining plot no. 420. Plot No. 415 and 421 were near abadi. Respondent no. 2 Bhagauati Deen held originally plots no. 420 and 466 measuring 1-6-0 and 5-4-13 respectively. Assistant Consolidation Officer planned to allot chaks in the same sector in two part though it was prohibited in the consolidation scheme hence petitioner filed objection and requested for allotment of one compact chak to him. Another objection was filed by respondent no. 2 also. Consolidation Officer by order dated 11.1.1991 allowed both the objections directing that Gata No. 468 and 421 be consolidated and made one chak measuring 1-6-0. Similarly objection of respondent no. 2 was also accepted in respect to plot no. 466. Respondent no. 2, however, filed Appeal No. 850 under Section 21 (2) of Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) stating that he ought to have been allotted chak at gata no. 420 but that has not been done, which is illegal. The appeal was rejected by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by order dated 8.5.1991. Thereagainst, respondent no. 2 preferred Revision No. 1248 under Section 48 of Act, 1953 before Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as "D.D.C."), who has allowed the same by impugned order dated 24.1.1992 and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer. 3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a misreading by observing that original plot of petitioner was not adjoining abadi though the fact is otherwise and this is clear misreading and this part of finding he has also challenged in para 11 and 12 of writ petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a misreading by observing that original plot of petitioner was not adjoining abadi though the fact is otherwise and this is clear misreading and this part of finding he has also challenged in para 11 and 12 of writ petition. 4. I find that the claim of respondent no.2 was not accepted by authorities below on the ground that he was allotted two chaks on the same sector which was not correct. With respect to plot no. 420, D.D.C. on the earlier part has clearly said that it is adjoining abadi as is evident from following finding: ^^xkVk la[;k 420 vkcknh ls yxk gqvk FkkA^^ English Translation by the Court: "Gata no. 420 was adjoining abadi." 5. In view thereof, in my view, it is a clear case where D.D.C. has committed manifest error and violated the principles of Section 19 of Act, 1953. Where there is violation of such guidelines, this Court must interfere in the allotment of chaks and not otherwise. In respect to cases where the interference in the allotment of chaks is permissible under Article 226, the issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition (Cons.) No. 5001 of 1983 (Ram Udit Vs. D.D.C. & others) decided on 24.09.2014 and in para 29 to 32, this Court has said as under: "29. It is not in dispute that the allotment of Chaks is to be made taking into consideration principles laid down under Section 19 of Act 1953. These principles have been considered by this Court in Bechan Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1985 AWC 604 All. In para 4 thereof, this Court has said that allotment of Chak has to be made consistent with the principles, namely, (i) every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding (ii) the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to valuation of the plot originally held by him and (iii) every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted Chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. The Court further held that the area held by tenture holder prior to start of consolidation proceedings, is relevant only to ascertain whether the area allotted to the tenure holder, varies by more than 25% or not, as contained in the first proviso of Section 19 of the Act, 1953. 30. In Dr. A.N. Srivastava Vs. DDC 1982 LLJ 42 Hon'ble K. N. Misra J. referring to Section 19(1)(e) of Act 1953 said: "The petitioners under the provisions of Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act were entitled to get a chak at a place where they had held largest part of their original holding. The words 'as for as possible' used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily ignoring the provisions contained therein. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while altering the chak of the petitioners should have assigned reasons for not making allotment to the petitioners on the aforesaid plots Nos. 1082 and 1087 which were admittedly largest part of their holding. In my opinion the words as far as possible used in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act require the provisions contained therein to be followed unless their compliance cannot be made for specific reasons to be assigned for it" (emphasis added) 31. This was reiterated in Samai Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others 1985 LLJ 330 and the Court further said: "In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act which lays down that every tenure-holder, as for as possible, should be allotted a Chak at a place where he held his largest holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have proposed a Chak of the petitioners on this very plot No. 1703 in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and in case it is not possible, then the reasons should have been mentioned for not allotting a Chak to the petitioners on their plot. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added) 32. In Doodh Nath Vs. The words "as far as possible" used in the said sub-section do not confer any jurisdiction upon the consolidation authorities to act arbitrarily, ignoring the provisions contained thereunder." (emphasis added) 32. In Doodh Nath Vs. DDC and others 1988(6)LCD 453 the Court held, if a tenure holder has his Chak with private source of irrigation, allotment of chak must be weighed so as to keep intact private source of irrigation of such person. The Court said that there cannot be any legal justification for refusing to allot a Chak to a tenure holder at a particular place, where he had held his private source of irrigation on the ground that his sons or other relations may have been allotted a chak in its vicinity. Every tenure holder would be entitled to get allotment of chak at a place where he could be allotted chak, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. The tenure holder would be entitled to get near village Abadi so much of land which he originally held at that place and also at the place of his private source of irrigation. The Court also said that undoubtedly, while deciding objection filed by a tenure holder against proposed allotment of chaks, equities are to be adjusted taking into consideration location of original land-holding of the other tenure holders whose chaks are likely to be affected while determining the objection. But while doing so, just and appropriate claim put forth by the tenure holder cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is a big tenure holder as compared to the opposite parties or that his son or some other relation has been allotted chak near the place where the objector claims an allotment of chak as against his original holding. The Court added a few words of caution for the consolidation authorities, in the following manner: " In the matter of allotment of chaks a care is to be taken by the authorities to allot chak to the tenure holders to which they are entitled as against their original holdings. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. If appropriate chak is not allotted to a tenure holder, he sustains irreparable loss and injury for all times to come. Thus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to feel hesitant in interfering with the impugned orders which are found to be unwarranted in law and facts of the case, merely on the ground that the writ petition could not be taken up earlier for disposal. The impugned orders cannot be left to survive merely on the delay in disposal of the writ petition for no fault of the petitioner." (para-11) 6. In view of above exposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.1.1992 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside and the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are hereby confirmed.