JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari for the petitioner in Writ B No.41148 of 2016 and Sri Kripa Shanker Yadav in Writ B No.45209 of 2016. 2. Nain Sukh (Chak Holder of Chak No.382) had ¼ share in plot nos.113 area 0.020 hectare, 114 area 0.540, 416 area 0.070, 430 area 0.260, 478 area 0.210, 481 area 0.010, 115 area 0.950 and ½ share in plot nos. 286 area 0.0280, 476 area 0.480 hectare total share of Nain Sukh amongst 9 plots was 0.857 hectare. 3. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer Nain Sukh was proposed a single chak on his largest part of original holding on plot nos. 476 etc. 4. Smt. Kamla Devi (Chak Holder of Chak No.59) (respondent-2) had 1/5 share in plot no. 143 area 1.570; 1/3 share in plot nos. 129 area 0.120, 130 area 1.020, 4/1 area 0.205, 4/3 area 0.045, 194 area 0.010, 193 area 0.100, 333 area 0.120, 481 area 0.120, total plots 8 total share of respondent-2 was 0.894 hectare. She was allotted two chaks from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer - first chak on plot no.153 and second chak was allotted on plot no.412 etc. 5. Nain Sukh and Smt. Kamla Devi both were satisfied with their proposed chaks and did not file any objection. One Suraj Singh filed an objection against the chak of Nain Sukh. Consolidation Officer heard his objection along with other objections of the village and by order dated 20.10.2012 decided the objection in which chak of Nain Sukh was slightly modified but substantially remained at the same place on plot no.476. 6. Nain Sukh and Smt. Kamla Devi again did not file any appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer. Suraj Singh again filed an appeal (registered as appeal No.293) and one Trilok Chand filed another appeal (registered as Appeal No.204). Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 25.2.2013. Thereafter Nain Sukh filed an application for recall of the order dated 25.2.2013 and Suraj Singh also filed an application for recall of the order dated 25.2.2013. Settlement Officer, Consolidation thereafter recalled his order dated 25.2.2013 and passed a fresh order dated 4.7.2013. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 25.2.2013. Thereafter Nain Sukh filed an application for recall of the order dated 25.2.2013 and Suraj Singh also filed an application for recall of the order dated 25.2.2013. Settlement Officer, Consolidation thereafter recalled his order dated 25.2.2013 and passed a fresh order dated 4.7.2013. By order dated 4.7.2013 chak of Smt. Kamla Devi was disturbed inasmuch her first chak on plot no.143 was deleted and its valuation was allotted at two places-firstly on plot no.143 and remaining on plot no.412 etc. Smt.Kamla Devi, therefore, filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 1.7.2015 partly allowed the revision of Smt. Kamla Devi and instead of restoring her chak of stage of Consolidation Officer on plot no.143 he has enhanced the small area to 0.060 hectare on plot no.143 and allotted second chak on plot no.476 taking it from the chak of Nain Sukh, whose chak was on his original holding. Hence, Smt. Kamla Devi and Nain Sukh both filed writ petitions before this Court. 7. So far as Phool Singh, the other affected person is concerned, area of 0.060 hectare of plot no.143 was taken from his chak and allotted in the same plot. Therefore, he is satisfied by carving out chak by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. 9. A perusal of CH form 23 of Nain Sukh shows that plot no.476 was the largest original holding of Nain Sukh and he was proposed a single chak at this place from the stage of Assistant Consolidation officer. No one filed any objection against the proposed chak of Nain Sukh and his chak remained substantially at the same place from the stage of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation. So far as the revision of Smt.Kamla Devi is concerned, in the revision Smt. Kamla Devi has made a specific demand for allotment of her chak on plot no.143 and 144 as plot no.143 was her largest original holding where she has private source of irrigation, trees, house etc. Deputy Director of Consolidation in spite of her specific demand has disturbed the chak of Nain Sukh on plot no.476 although she had no demand for allotment of chak on plot no.476 etc. Deputy Director of Consolidation in spite of her specific demand has disturbed the chak of Nain Sukh on plot no.476 although she had no demand for allotment of chak on plot no.476 etc. Therefore, order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, by which he has disturbed the chak of Nain Sukh on plot no.476 etc. which was allotted on his largest part of original holding, is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. So far as Smt.Kamla Devi is concerned, plot no.143 was her largest part of original holding in which she had 1/5 share and according to her share she was having 0.314 hectare of original holding at this place. Deputy Director of Consolidation instead of considering her demand for allotment of chak on plot no.143 allotted chak to her on plot no.476 etc. where she had no demand at all. This chak of Smt. Kamla Devi on plot no.476 is an uran chak and she is not satisfied with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. In the result both the writ petitions are allowed. the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.7.2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolation, who shall decide the revision of Smt. Kamla Devi afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.