JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Girija Shankar Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri G.C. Yadav, holding brief of Sri P.P. Chaudhary, for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Plots 1614/10 (area 0-5-18 bigha), 2061/2 (area 0-2-7 bigha), 2171/2 (area 0-3-17 bigha) and 2173 (area 1-0-3 bigha) (total area 1-12-5 bigha) were original holdings of the petitioners. The petitioners (chak-1122) were proposed two chaks i.e. first chak was proposed on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha) and second chak was proposed on plots 2380, 2381, 2382, 2405, 2429 and 2433 (total area 0-12-3 bigha). According to the petitioners, their plot 1614/10 was a roadside land but it has been reserved for school. In order to compensate the petitioners, they were allotted their first chak on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha). 3. Sharejang (now represented by respondents-4 and 5) (chak 3225) was proposed first chak on his original holdings of plot 8950 etc. of total area of 6-11-4 bigha (total valuation 45.58 annas. He was proposed his second chak on 1517 etc. of total area 2-5-6 bigha (total valuation of 20.54 annas). Sharejang filed an objection under section 20 of the Act, claiming for change in his second chak and for allotment of its valuation near his original holdings of plot 8950 and remaining valuation on his original holding of plot 1518. It may be mentioned that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holdings of Sharejang. Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.05.1973 allowed the objection of Sharejang due to which chak of the petitioners on plot 1517/3 (area 0-11-13 bigha) was taken away and its valuation was allotted on plots 1640, 1634, 1635, 1636 (total area 0-12-7 bigha). Sharejang was allotted his second chak on plots 1517/3,1635 and 1636 of total area 1-12-8 bigha and remaining valuation was allotted on plots 8950 etc., on his original holdings according to his demand, which was added in his first chak. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1175) from the aforesaid order. Sharejang was allotted his second chak on plots 1517/3,1635 and 1636 of total area 1-12-8 bigha and remaining valuation was allotted on plots 8950 etc., on his original holdings according to his demand, which was added in his first chak. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1175) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 20.6.1973 found that as roadside land having commercial value of the petitioners was reserved for school purposes as such he was rightly proposed his second chak on plot 1517/3, which was a roadside land but Consolidation Officer has illegally disturbed his first chak. On these findings the appeal was partly allowed and first chak of the petitioners was shifted on plots 1517/3 (area 0-3-6 bigha), 1636 (area (0-4-15 bigha and 1637 (area 0-4-10 bigha) (total 0-13-11 bigha). 5. Sharejang filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1215) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 15.12.1982, held that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holdings of Sharejang as such Consolidation Officer rightly allotted chak to him on plot 1517/3, which was in the vicinity of his original holdings. The petitioners were allotted an uran chak on plot 1517/3 but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally restored the uran chak of the petitioners. On these findings he allowed the revision. Amendment chart attached to the order dated 15.12.1982 was corrected by order dated 5.1.1983, in which the petitioners have been allotted chak on plots 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1355 and 1767 (total area 1-11-12 bigha). Thereafter it was again corrected on 11.11.1983 and the petitioners was again shifted on plots 8945, 8946, 8950, 8952, 14378 and 15077 (total area 1-14-0 bigha), on the original holdings of Sharejang. 6. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2427 of 1984, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.11.2005 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 15.12.1982 as corrected on 11.11.1983 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties. After remand, the revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, by impugned order dated 28.11.2014, held that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holding of Sharejang. After remand, the revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, by impugned order dated 28.11.2014, held that plot 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) was original holding of Sharejang. Total valuation of Sharejang of his original holding in this vicinity was 41.77 paisa, out of which he was allotted chak on plot 1517/3, which was in vicinity of his original holdings. The petitioners were allotted uran chak on plot 1517/3, on a roadside land having commercial value as such revision of Sharejang was rightly allowed by order dated 15.12.1982. On these findings, he again allowed the revision and affirmed order dated 15.12.1982 as corrected on 5.1.1983. Hence this writ petition was filed. 7. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation has found that as roadside land of the petitioners of plot 1614/10 (area 0-5-18 bigha) having commercial value was reserved for school purposes as such he was rightly proposed his second chak on plot 1517/3. Plot 1517 was not the original holdings of Sharejang. He could not claim it, as on right. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally failed to notice that demand of Sharejang in his objection was for allotment of chak on his original holdings on plot 8950 and remaining valuation on his original holding of plot 1518. For the first time, in revision a different demand has been made and accepted. The petitioner is a small tenure holder. He has been illegally deprived of his original holding of plot 1614/10. As the petitioner was allotted chak on roadside land as such they did not challenge reservation of plot 1416/10 for school sites. Deputy Director of Consolidation before allowing the revision ought to have adjusted equity between the parties. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that plots 807 (area 0-13-8 bigha), 827/1 (area 0-1-2 bigha), 1016/4 (area 0-12-6 bigha and 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) (total valuation 41.77 annas) were original holdings of Sharejang at this place. In lieu of it, Sharejang was allotted chak on plot 1517/3 etc. of total valuation of 20.54 annas only. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally allowed the appeal without hearing Sharejang, who was not arrayed as party in the appeal. In lieu of it, Sharejang was allotted chak on plot 1517/3 etc. of total valuation of 20.54 annas only. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally allowed the appeal without hearing Sharejang, who was not arrayed as party in the appeal. The petitioners was having his original holdings of 1416/10 (area 0-5-18) bigha but they were illegally proposed chak on plot 1517/3 of the area of 0-11-13 bigha. They were given undue benefits by allotting a roadside land of commercial value as an uran chak. Deputy Director of Consolidation, after considering entire facts found that chak of the petitioners on plot 1517/3 was uran as such he allowed the revision. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of objection of Sharejang shows that he was claiming for change in his second chak and for allotment of part of its valuation near his original holdings of plot 8950 and remaining valuation on his original holding of plot 1518. In the objection, the petitioner was not impleaded as party nor allotment made to him on plot 1517/3 was challenged. Consolidation Officer without considering possibility for allotment of chak to Sharejang on plot 1518, has disturbed the chak of the petitioner. By order of Consolidation Officer, Sharejang was allotted second chak on plots 1517/3 (area 1-2-5 bigha), 1635 (area 0-1-9 bigha), 1636 (area 0-13-4 bigha) and 1637/2 (area 0-5-10 bigha) (total area 1-12-8 bigha). Sharejang was satisfied and did not file any appeal. By the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, area of chak of Sharejang on plot 1517/3 has been exceeded 2 bigha. Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to examine original demand of Sharejang and entertained a totally new demand in revision although in chak carvation matter, a party should not allowed to change his original demand. 10. So far as arguments of the Counsel for the respondents that plots 807 (area 0-13-8 bigha), 827/1 (area 0-1-2 bigha), 1016/4 (area 0-12-6 bigha and 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) (total valuation 41.77 annas) were original holdings of Sharejang at this place, is concerned, a roadside land and the land away from roadside do not carry same valuation. 10. So far as arguments of the Counsel for the respondents that plots 807 (area 0-13-8 bigha), 827/1 (area 0-1-2 bigha), 1016/4 (area 0-12-6 bigha and 1518 (area 1-2-1 bigha) (total valuation 41.77 annas) were original holdings of Sharejang at this place, is concerned, a roadside land and the land away from roadside do not carry same valuation. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally failed to examine as to which of the plot of Sharejang were roadside land nor recorded any findings in this respect. Map has not been filed to show that aforesaid plots were roadside land as such Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to record a findings in this respect. 11. Allotment of plot 1517/3 to the petitioners was in lieu of his roadside plot 1614/10 (area 0-5-18 bigha) which was reserved for school purposes. Plot 1517/3 was not original holdings of Sharejang as such in revision, he could not claim allotment of this plot as of right. In chak allotment matter, consolidation authorities are required to adjust equity between the parties and ensure that a person should not be deprived his original holdings causing material prejudice to him. Grievance of the petitioners that they were deprived their roadside original holdings have not found due consideration by Deputy Director of Consolidation. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within four months. ………………