JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Riduvant Pratap Singh, for the petitioner, and Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ramesh Pundir, for the contesting respondents-2 to 4. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 05.08.2003 and 27.07.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is for allotment of chak on plot 722, 723 and 724 of village Matauli, tahsil Deoband district Saharanpur. Plots 720 (area 0.066 hectare) and 721 (area 0.172 hectare) were original holdings of the petitioners, in which he had 1/4 share. Plots 722, 723 and 724 were original holdings of Mange Ram, Tejpal, Vikram, Jai Kumar sons of Atar Singh, in which they had 1/2 share. According to the petitioner, under the mutual agreement with Mange Ram, Tejpal, Vikram, Jai Kumar and the petitioner, he was allotted a chak on his original holdings plots 720 and 721 along with other surrounding plots, including plots 722, 723 and 724, by Consolidation Officer. Respondent-2 was proposed a chak on plot 1113 etc., respondent-3 was proposed a chak on plots 1116 etc. and respondent-4 was proposed her first chak on plots 1112 etc. and second chak on plots 832 etc. They did not file any objection under Section 20 of the Act. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 31.01.2001 allotted plots 363 etc. to respondent-2 and plots 359 etc. to respondent-3. In appeal, for the first time, they began to demand a chak on plots 722, 723 and 724. Their appeals were dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 20.03.2002 allotted first chak to respondent-4 on plots 361 etc. Then she began to demand chak on plots 722, 723 and 724 in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 05.08.2003, allowed their revisions and allotted uran chaks to them on plots 722, 723 and 724 and the petitioner was allotted uran chak on plots 361 etc. taking it from the chaks of respondents-2 to 4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.08.2003, in Writ B No. 34996 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 27.10.2014, holding that the petitioner was allotted uran chak without considering his grievances. taking it from the chaks of respondents-2 to 4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.08.2003, in Writ B No. 34996 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 27.10.2014, holding that the petitioner was allotted uran chak without considering his grievances. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been set aside and matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding revisions afresh. However Deputy Director of Consolidation again reinstated order dated 05.08.2003 by the impugned order dated 27.07.2015. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. According to respondents-2 to 4, Mahkar (respondent-3) and Amnesh Kumar (husband of respondent-4) had their 1/2 share in plots 722, 723 and 724. Smt. Shanti (respondent-2) is mother of respondent-3 and Smt. Rekha (respondent-4) is sister-in-law of respondent-3. They belonged to one family as such looking to their facility, Deputy Director has allotted chaks to them on these plots, which are their original holdings. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, respondents-2 to 4 were allotted uran chaks on plots 1112, 1113 and 1116 etc. As total area of their chaks was substantially increased as such in spite of fact that they were allotted uran chaks, they did not file any objection under Section 20 of the Act. However, Consolidation Officer has disturbed their chaks from plots 1112 etc. and allotted uran chaks on plots 359 etc. as such they filed appeals and demanded for allotment of chaks either of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer or on their original holdings of plots 722, 723 and 724, which has been accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation. By order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondents-2 to 4 have been allotted chaks on their original holdings. There is no illegality in it. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 31.01.2001, the petitioner was allotted single chak on his original holdings of plots 720 and 721 along with other surrounding plots, including plots 722, 723 and 724. Plots 722, 723 and 724 were original holdings of Mange Ram, Tejpal, Vikram, Jai Kumar sons of Atar Singh, in which they had 1/2 share. Under the mutual agreement with Mange Ram, Tejpal, Vikram, Jai Kumar and the petitioner, these plots were allotted to him. Respondent-2 was proposed a chak on plot 1113 etc., respondent-3 was proposed a chak on plots 1116 etc. Under the mutual agreement with Mange Ram, Tejpal, Vikram, Jai Kumar and the petitioner, these plots were allotted to him. Respondent-2 was proposed a chak on plot 1113 etc., respondent-3 was proposed a chak on plots 1116 etc. and respondent-4 was proposed her first chak on plots 1112 etc. and second chak on plots 832 etc. They did not file any objection under Section 20 of the Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allotted totally uran chak to the petitioner. Although the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 05.08.2003 has been set aside by this Court and matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding revisions afresh. But Deputy Director of Consolidation again reinstated order dated 05.08.2003 by the impugned order. Order of respondent-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Plots 720 (area 0.066 hectare) and 721 (area 0.172 hectare) were original holdings of the petitioners, in which he had 1/4 share. Thus total area of the share of petitioner at this place is less than 0.060 hectare. A perusal of CH Form-23 of the petitioner shows that he was allotted an area of 0.835 hectare on plots 720 etc. by Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order took an 0.584 hectare from his chak. An area of 0.251 hectare is still with the petitioner on his original holdings plots 720 and 721, which is more than his original area. 7. So far as respondent-2 to 4 are concerned, a perusal of CH Form-23 of respondent-3 shows that plot 722 (area 0.112 hectare), 723 (area 0.195 hectare and 724 (area 0.164 hectare) total area 0.471 hectare was original holdings of Mahkar and his brother Amnesh Kumar, in which they had 1/2 share. Plot 723 was his largest original holdings as such he was entitled for allotment of chak on this plot under Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act. Smt. Shanti (respondent-2) is mother of respondent-3 and Smt. Rekha (respondent-4) is sister-in-law of respondent-3. They belonged to one family as such looking to their facility, Deputy Director has allotted chaks to them on these plots, which are their original holdings. 8. Smt. Shanti (respondent-2) is mother of respondent-3 and Smt. Rekha (respondent-4) is sister-in-law of respondent-3. They belonged to one family as such looking to their facility, Deputy Director has allotted chaks to them on these plots, which are their original holdings. 8. The arguments that although respondents-2 to 4 were proposed uran chaks but they did not file any objection under Section 20 is concerned, it has been stated that as total area of their chaks was substantially increased as such in spite of fact that they were proposed uran chaks, they did not file any objection under Section 20 of the Act. However, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation disturbed their chaks from plots 1112 etc. and allotted uran chaks on plots 359 etc. as such they filed appeals, revision and demanded for allotment of chaks either of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer or on their original holdings of plots 722, 723 and 724, which has been accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus substantial increase in the area of the chaks of respondents-2 to 4 was a genuine grounds for them for not filing objection under Section 20 of the Act. When their chak were disturbed by Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and they were allotted uran chaks then they challenged it. 9. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the petitioner has sold an area of 0.2520 hectare from his chak on plots 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726 and 727 to Smt. Babli wife of Mukesh Kumar, who had not raised any objection in the revisions. Pawan Singh, in Revision No. 54 of 2002-03, demanded for allotment of his chak on plots 600 and 607, which were his original holdings. Thus he was not interested for allotment of chak on plots 722, 723 and 724, which was original holdings of respondent-3 and respondent-4. These findings have not been challenged by the petitioner. 10. So far as mutual consent with co-sharers of respondent-3 and the petitioner is concerned, a co-sharer can claim chak on his original holdings under Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act but there is no provision, which authorize a tenure holder to assign his right under Section 19 (1) (e) of the Act to any other tenure holder. Deputy Director of Consolidation has balanced the equity between the parties. 11. Deputy Director of Consolidation has balanced the equity between the parties. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, writ petitions has no merit and is dismissed.