JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. In view of the office report dated 15.12.2016, service of notice upon opposite party no. 5 is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court. 2. Private respondents 2 to 4 are represented. The parties have exchanged their affidavits. 3. Accordingly, the matter is being heard finally. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla for the contesting respondents. 6. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. 7. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot nos. 1153 and 1154. 8. The respondents 2 to 4 and respondent no. 5 are brothers and were joint chak holders no. 402. 9. Additionally, respondent no. 5 was possessed of same land exclusively in his name regarding which chak no. 548 was carved out. 10. It appears that respondent no. 5, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act praying that his share in joint chak no. 402 be allotted to him adjacent to his chak on plot no. 1154. 11. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 30.05.2007, allowed the objection. The consequential appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed on 27.09.2008. The aforesaid orders were affirmed on dismissal of revision vide order dated 24.09.2010. 12. It appears that a restoration application was filed by Jodh Singh, which came to be dismissed for default on 01.12.2011. During the pendency of this restoration application, the respondent no. 5 Subhash Chandra, sold his entire land to the petitioner. 13. It appears that a restoration application was filed for setting aside the order dismissing the restoration application for default. The restoration applications were allowed and subsequently the revision has been decided, afresh, by the impugned order dated 10.08.2016. 14. The grievance of the petitioner is that in so far as the impugned order allots area of plot no. 1153 to the parties, abutting the road, he can have no grievance to the same. He is only aggrieved by the fact that plot no. 1154, which was his exclusive plot and admittedly valuable road side land has been allotted also to the respondents. 15. 1153 to the parties, abutting the road, he can have no grievance to the same. He is only aggrieved by the fact that plot no. 1154, which was his exclusive plot and admittedly valuable road side land has been allotted also to the respondents. 15. There was no justification for allotting this land to the respondents and such allotment is contrary to the notifications issued by the State Government, which provide that valuable road side land should either be kept out of consolidation operations or it should be allotted in the chak of the original holder thereof. 16. Perusal of the correction table appended to the order impugned reveals that the contention of counsel for the petitioner has substance. 17. Man Singh and Pooran Singh, namely respondents 2 and 4 have been allotted some area of plot no. 1154, which admittedly was the exclusive plot of Subhash Chandra, the petitioner's vendor. 18. Even learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the respondents, cannot, in view of the settled legal position, claim allotment over plot no. 1154, which is valuable road side land. However, he reiterates that the parties should be allotted chaks abutting the raod on plot no. 1153, which is admittedly their joint holding and is also valuable road side land. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order ensuring that all the parties namely, the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 are allotted chaks abutting the road over plot no. 1153, commensurate to their share therein. 20. The Deputy Director of Consolidation should also ensure that the respondents are not allotted any land of plot no. 1154, which should be allotted exclusively to the petitioner as he is its sole owner. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of certified copy of this order is filed before him, in accordance with the directions contained in the body of this judgment.