JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Notice on behalf of respondent-1 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent-2 has been accepted by Sri V. K. Shukla. 2. Admittedly Smt. Brijwati, respondent-3 is dead and her interest is represented through her son Shankar Singh, respondent-2. The counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make a note against the name of respondent-3 as “deceased and represented by respondent-2”. 3. The counsel for the caveator does not propose to file counter-affidavit in the facts of the case. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally. 4. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.1.2015 passed in chak allotment matter. 5. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the allotment of chak on plot No. 155 and 154. The total area of plot No. 155 and 154 was 2.081 hectare in which the petitioner was having 1/12 share. The counsel for the petitioner states that an area of 0.180 falls in the share of the petitioner. The petitioner was proposed a single chak of an area of 0.218 hectare on plot No. 155. The objection and appeals filed by the respondents against the petitioner has been dismissed. Thereafter two revisions were filed by respondent-2 in chak allotment matters. These revisions were heard alongwith connected revisions by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 16.1.2015 allowed the revisions and disturbed the chak of the petitioner as well as chak of the brothers of the petitioner. The total chak of the petitioner as allotted to him on plot No. 155 has been deleted and in lieu of it the petitioner has been allotted chak on plot No. 42, 54, 55 and 56. The area taken from the chak of the petitioner has been allotted in the chaks of respondents- 2 and 3. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the share of the petitioner, he was allotted chak on plot No. 155 which was his original holding but the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified to disturb the chak of the petitioner on his original holding. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the share of the petitioner, he was allotted chak on plot No. 155 which was his original holding but the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified to disturb the chak of the petitioner on his original holding. He further submits that in plot No. 55 the petitioner was having an area of 0.015 hectare and in lieu of this small area the petitioner has been allotted entire chak on plot No. 55. Plot No. 55 was valued at the rate of 80 paisa while the plots -154 and 155 were valued at the rate of 60 and 70 paisa. Due to allotment of chak of high valuation of the land the area of the chak of the petitioner has been substantially reduced. The petitioner was having his boring on plot No. 155 and therefore allotment made to him on his private source of irrigation. 7. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondent submits that respondents were also the co-sharer in plot No. 154 and 155 in which respondent-2 was having 1/24 share and respondent-3 was also having the same share. The respondents have planted trees and has also installed boring on plot No. 154 and looking to the improvements made by the respondents the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of the respondents. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. It has not denied that the petitioner was co-sharer in plot No. 155 and 154 and according to the petitioner he has installed a boring on plot No. 155 and he was having his private source of irrigation and allotment made to the petitioner on this plot cannot be said to be illegal. 9. So far as the claim of the respondents for allotment of chak on plot No. 154 is concerned, it is not clear that as to whom this plot has been alloted. In such circumstances boring as well as various trees planted by the respondents cannot be said to be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. The grievance of the respondents has to be satisfied from the persons to whom his boring and trees were allotted. In such circumstances boring as well as various trees planted by the respondents cannot be said to be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. The grievance of the respondents has to be satisfied from the persons to whom his boring and trees were allotted. In such circumstances the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.1.2015 is liable to be set aside. 10. In the results the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.1.2015 so far as it was in Revision No. 295 (Shankar Singh v. Brijpal Singh) and Revision No. 297 (Shankar Singh v. Brijpal Singh) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. ———————