JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Vishnu Sahai for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh for the caveator. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of DDC dated 20.7.2016, allowing the revision and setting aside the order of SOC dated 2.1.2013 and upholding the order of CO dated 3.2.2010. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of valuation of plot No. 1275/1, area 0.330 hectare. It may be mentioned that from the stage of Section 8-A, an area of 0.330 hectare of plot No. 1275 was valued @ 90 paise, while an area of 0.015 hectare and an area of 0.080 hectare of plot No. 1275 were chak out. These plots were original holdings of Smt. Hasina and others. The contesting respondents were allotted chaks in lieu of their plot No. 1275 on plot No. 1308. At the time of delivery of possession, it was found that they could not obtain possession over the chak which was allotted to plot No. 1308, as there was school building on it, therefore, they filed a time barred objection u/s 9 of the Act for deleting valuation of plot No. 1275/1, area 0.330 hectare. CO made spot inspection and found that over a portion of plot No. 1275/1, there is abadi, as such, it is not possible to deliver possession over it. Otherwise also, this plot is surrounded by the abadi, as such, he by order dated 3.2.2010, deleted the valuation of plot No. 1275/1. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the SOC, who by order dated 2.1.2013, held that notification u/s 9 took place in the year 1993 and this objection was filed in the year 2008, therefore, there was no justification to consider the grievance for deleting valuation of plot No. 1275/1, after such a long time. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of CO dated 3.2.2010. The contesting respondents filed two revisions against the order of SOC. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by DDC. The DDC also obtained a fresh report from the Consolidator, who submitted his report on 9.2.2013. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of CO dated 3.2.2010. The contesting respondents filed two revisions against the order of SOC. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by DDC. The DDC also obtained a fresh report from the Consolidator, who submitted his report on 9.2.2013. After hearing the parties, DDC found that from the report of Consolidator as well as order of CO, it is clear that on plot No. 1308, which was allotted in the chak of contesting respondents, there was a school building and they could not get possession over it. 4. So far as plot No. 1275/1 is concerned, in the southern side of it, two storied building was constructed over it. Otherwise also, this plot is surrounded with abadi in the eastern and western sides. Thus, it is not possible to deliver possession to the allottee of the chak over it. SOC has illegally allowed the appeal, without examining the relevant material on record. On these findings, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of SOC and reinstated the order dated 3.2.2010. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order of DDC is illegal, in as much as, spot inspection report, as obtained by the CO, does not indicate any building over the land in dispute. Delivery of possession in the village in pursuance of confirmation of the chak took place upto 30.7.2007. The objection u/s 9 was filed thereafter on 10.3.2008 and there was no justification for condonation of delay, in as much as, the village was notified u/s 9 of the Act in the year 1993 and no objection was filed within time. DDC has relied upon the report of Consolidator dated 9.2.2015 showing a two storied building in southern side of plot No. 1275/1. Although, this building was not existing at the time of partal, nor has been mentioned in any of the consolidation papers. Thus, this building was constructed sometime after allotment had taken place and no notice of it could be taken. It has been held that there is a school building in plot No. 1308, but the petitioner was allotted chak on plot No. 1308 by the order of DDC dated 31.3.2011. Thus, this building was constructed sometime after allotment had taken place and no notice of it could be taken. It has been held that there is a school building in plot No. 1308, but the petitioner was allotted chak on plot No. 1308 by the order of DDC dated 31.3.2011. Thus, the order of DDC has been passed without considering the relevant materials in this respect and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. DDC has given two reasons for deleting the valuation of plot No. 1275/1. The first reason was recorded that plot No. 1308 was allotted in the chak of the contesting respondents, although on plot No. 1308, there was a school building and they could not obtain possession over it, due to construction of school building. The second reason was recorded that a part of plot No. 1275 was already chak out from the stage of preparation of Statement of Principle. So far as existence of this plot is concerned, it is surrounded with abadi in the southern, eastern and western sides. In the southern side of plot No. 1275, there is a two storied building and due to this, the possession over this plot could not be given to the allottee of the chak. These two reasons do not suffer from any illegality and it was a valid reason for deleting the valuation of plot No. 1275/1. Thus, there is no illegality in the order of DDC dated 12.7.2016. 7. So far as the allotment of plot No. 1308 in the chak of the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of CH Form 23 shows that this allotment was made by the order of DDC dated 31.3.2011. Since this order is not before this Court, as such, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order dated 31.3.2011, allotting plot No. 1308 in the chak of the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.