JUDGMENT : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 25.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 12.02.2014 and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 10.10.2013 have been set aside and the chak of respondent no.2 having valuation of 81.36 which was allotted to him at plot no.348 etc. has been abolished and he has been given the chak on plot no.380 etc. 3. By means of a supplementary affidavit, the provisional consolidation scheme, whereby chak to the petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 and also respondent no.2 were proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer have been brought on record. Respondent no.2 was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The first chak was proposed to him on plot nos.343M, 345M and 348M. The second chak proposed to respondent no.2 was on plot nos. 64/1, 68M and 69M. As far as the third chak proposed to respondent no.2 is concerned, the same was proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on plot nos.206M, 207M, 208M and 209M. 4. There is no dispute in respect of the second and third chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the respondent no.2. 5. On publication of the provisional consolidation scheme, an objection was filed by the respondent no.2 before the Consolidation Officer praying therein that the Consolidation Officer in Case No.167 decided on 02.01.2013 has increased the valuation of plot no.177 which was his original holding and hence, the increased valuation be given to respondent no.2, either in the proposed chak no.2 or chak no.3. The said objection preferred under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was decided by the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 15.03.2013 and the demand raised by the respondent no.2 in respect of adjustment of increased valuation of his original holding of Gata No.177 was acceded to by the Consolidation Officer. 6. It is relevant to observe that when the respondent no.2 filed the said objection, he only prayed that the benefit of increased valuation in respect of Gata No.177 be granted to him. 6. It is relevant to observe that when the respondent no.2 filed the said objection, he only prayed that the benefit of increased valuation in respect of Gata No.177 be granted to him. He, however, did not object to the three chaks proposed to him, that is to say, he did not file any objection in respect of inclusion or exclusion of any area of any other plot in respect of the three chaks proposed to him. After the decision of the first objection by the Consolidation Officer, the respondent no.2 preferred another objection under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act along with an application seeking condonation of delay in moving the said objection and praying therein that the chak proposed to him on plot no. 343 etc. be abolished and he be given chak in its place comprising of plot nos.282, 283, 385 and 386. The said objection was considered by the Consolidation Officer, who vide his order dated 10.10.2013 rejected the same by observing that in case the demand of respondent no.2 is accepted, then the chak holder nos.352, 171 and 277 shall also be affected, who in fact are to be allotted chak in terms of the order dated 18.05.2013 passed in Appeal No.241. It was further observed by the Consolidation Officer concerned while rejecting the claim of the respondent no.2 that in case the demand of respondent no.2 is acceded to, either chak holder no.59 or chak holder 280 i.e. the petitioner nos.1 and 2 shall have two chaks in the same sector, which is not permissible as per the relevant provisions contained in U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting the claim of the respondent no.2 is, thus, a reasoned order. 7. The respondent no.2 filed an appeal under section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act challenging the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer reiterating the same prayer which he had made while filing the objection before the consolidation i.e. that his chak proposed on Gata No.340 be abolished and in its place he be allotted a chak comprising of plot nos.381/1 to 386M. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, however, did not agree with the contention of the respondent no.2 and dismissed the appeal by means of the order dated 12.02.2014 observing therein that the first chak to the respondent no.2 has been proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on his original holding i.e. Gata No.348M. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also observed while dismissing the appeal that in case the demand of the respondent no.2 is acceded to, it would not be possible to give him chak of total valuation which will result in creation of 4th chak to him, which will not be appropriate. 8. The aforesaid orders dated 10.10.2013 and 12.02.2014 passed respectively by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation were challenged by the respondent no.2 under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by filing a revision petition. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without assigning any plausible reason for taking a view different than the view taken by the Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allowed the revision petition filed by respondent no.2 by passing the impugned order dated 25.03.2014. It has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that though on plot no. 380 etc. the respondent no.2 had sufficient valuation, however, he has not been allocated any chak on the said plot, namely, plot no.380 etc. He has also stated that though on plot no.348 the area belonging to respondent no.2 is only 0.273 hectare, however, he has been given a chak of valuation of as much as 81.36 which is four times the valuation which the respondent no.2 had in plot no.348. The only reason indicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order, whereby he has set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is that both the petitioners who are chak holder nos. 59 and 280 respectively, have been given a chak having larger area out of plot no.280 though they were having less area in the said plots i.e. plot no.280 etc. 9. The reason indicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the first hand appears to be attractive, however, the same if examined in the light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable. 9. The reason indicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the first hand appears to be attractive, however, the same if examined in the light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable. I have no hesitation to hold that in case such interference in revisional jurisdiction in the matter of allotment of chaks by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is permitted carving out of chaks and proceedings related thereto under the Consolidation of Holdings Act would become almost impossible. 10. The Court does not agree with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for yet another reason and the reason is that on disposal of the objection filed by the villagers against the provisional consolidation scheme by the Consolidation Officer by means of his judgment and order dated 15.03.2013, Kabja Parivartan took place on 22.07.2013, whereupon the petitioner no.2 has got a tube-well installed on Gata No.383 and further that she has also got an electricity connection to run the said tubewell. 11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts as well, the Court is of the opinion that it would not be equitable to permit the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to sustain. 12. For the reason disclosed above, the writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2014, by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao in Revision Petition No.547, under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 13. There will be no order as to costs.