JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev K Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Mau, in Revision No. 350/629/14-15. 3. The facts as reflect from the record are thus; 4. the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are real brothers and holding Gata No. 475 to the extent of 1/12th share each. During the consolidation operation the petitioner was proposed single chak over the land of Plot Nos. 123 and 124. Against the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') registered as Case No. 168, on the ground that chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is of high valuation, as a result thereof the area of his chak was reduced more than 20%. The objection filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.11.2012 and he was allotted single chak over his original holding i.e. Plot No. 289 having area of 0.243 hectares. 5. Since the petitioner was satisfied with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.11.2012 and was never challenged by anybody, the same become final. 6. It is further apparent from the record that the respondent no. 2 who is the co-sharer along with the petitioner to the extent of 1/12th share was not satisfied with the proposed allotment of chak over plot no. 401/1 which was proposed to him by Assistant Consolidation Officer considering the fact that it was situated in font of his house (Valuation of 80 paise). Hence, respondent no.2 filed a separate objection under Section 20 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer and demanded that he may be allotted plot Nos. 316, 399 and 123. The objection filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.11.2012 and he was allotted chak over plot Nos. 316, 399 and 123 as demanded by him. 316, 399 and 123. The objection filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.11.2012 and he was allotted chak over plot Nos. 316, 399 and 123 as demanded by him. Although, the objection of respondent no.2 was allowed and he was granted land as per his demand, yet being not satisfied, he filed an appeal in which he changed his demand by stating that he may be allotted chak over Plot No.400/1 by reducing area from the land of Plot No. 123. The appeal filed by the respondent no.2 was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 17.7.2013 and the area of Plot No. 400/1 was increased as per his demand. Against the said order, respondent no.2 filed a revision being Revision No. 350/629/14-15 under Section 48 (1) of the Act in which respondent no. 2 again changed his demand stating that he has been allotted less area than that of his brother (petitioner) and therefore, his chak may be increased by allotting land of Plot No. 289. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.11.2014 allowed the revision of respondent no. 2 and disturbed the petitioner's chak. 8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no.2 at every stage changed his demand and the Settlement Officer Consolidation had allotted the chak over Plot No. 400/1 as per demand of respondent no. 2 and therefore he changed demand at the revisional stage could not have been taken into consideration. The petitioner was not at all aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.11.2012 as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.7.2013 but the change of demand at every stage by the respondent no. 2 is not permissible under the law as per the object spirit and enactment of the Act and therefore, the revision filed by respondent no.2 was liable to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are the co-sharers and his demand was changed just to balance the equity between the parties and there is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 10. I have considered the rival submissions as raised by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. 10. I have considered the rival submissions as raised by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the earlier order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer deciding the matter, registered as case No. 168 by which objection of the petitioner was allowed and single chak had been allotted to the petitioner over his original holding i.e. Plot no. 289, has not been challenged by either of parties, and the said order thus attained finality. 12. It is also apparent from the record that at every stage the respondent no.2 has changed his demand and upto the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation, demand in respect of petitioner's chak has never been made by the respondent no.2. The demand of respondent no.2 that he may be allotted chak over plot No. 400/1 before the appellate authority, has been considered and there was no occasion for the respondent no.2 to file revision challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.7.2013 with change in his demand. 13. It is well settled principles that during consolidation operation at every stage of consolidation demand cannot be changed, and therefore, the revisional authority appears to have committed illegality by not considering all aspects of the matter while allowing the revision of respondent no.2. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has specifically relied upon paragraph no.10 of the judgment of this court in Ram Prakash Pandey Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported 2003(3) AWC 2753; which reads as under:- “In view of the foregoing discussions, no illegality is found in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by contesting respondent. Equities of both the parties have correctly adjusted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by affecting charges in the chaks of both the parties. Substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which need no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 15. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon paragraph no. 8 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Atar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2014 (122) RD586, which reads as under: “In my considered opinion the second and the third submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also devoid of any merit. 8 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Atar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2014 (122) RD586, which reads as under: “In my considered opinion the second and the third submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also devoid of any merit. The adjustments to the chaks have been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for cogent reasons. The order impugned balances the equities between the parties and they both have been allotted chaks on their original holdings in accordance with their shares therein.” 16. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents as cited above do not apply in the present case since in the present case the respondent no.2 had changed his demand at every stage coupled with the facts that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.11.2012 had become final. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.