JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sarvesh Kumar Shukla for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in Revision No. 696 filed by the respondent No. 2, challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 21.12.2011 in Appeal No. 572. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners mat the petitioners were the tenure holders originally of Plot Nos. 32, 7, 41/1, 41/3 and half sharer in Plot No. 41/2. The Assistant Consolidation Officer looking into the fact that the petitioners had small areas of land all over the place proposed two chaks to be given to the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer on 26.4.2011 against such proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The respondent No. 2 in the aforesaid objection, clearly stated that he had been given chak over Plot Nos. 3 and 7 and the chak indicated over Plot No. 7 was infested with termite, therefore, he may be given chak over his original Plot No. 38. However, in case his original Plot No. 38 could not be given to him, Plot Nos. 7 and 3 be increased in their valuation and then he would have no objection. The Consolidation Officer after considering the case of the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2, by his order dated 31.5.2011, rejected such objections on the ground that on perusal of the map of the chaks proposed, it was found that the objector i.e. respondent No. 2 had been given maximum area in his original Plot No. 9-Minjumla and the demand now placed in the objection seemed unreasonable. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an appeal under section 21(2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 572 heard all the parties concerned, but rejected the appeal by a detailed order dated 21.12.2011, wherein he observed that on perusal of map of the Village as proposed for allotment, it was found that the appellant had been given two chaks on Plot Nos. 9/2 and 3/1. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 572 heard all the parties concerned, but rejected the appeal by a detailed order dated 21.12.2011, wherein he observed that on perusal of map of the Village as proposed for allotment, it was found that the appellant had been given two chaks on Plot Nos. 9/2 and 3/1. The demand for exchange of Plot No. 3/1 by Plot No. 38 seemed unreasonable as chak proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer had taken into account the chak road proposed in between and the chak road was useful not only for other villagers, but for the appellant also, therefore, the chak proposed on Plot No. 9/2 being separated only by chak road cannot be said to be creating much difficulty to the petitioners. Moreover, it was found that the appellant himself had agreed to such chak formation before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer thereafter. Against the order dated 21.12.2011, respondent No. 2 filed a revision, which revision has been entertained and the respondent No. 2 has been given chak over Plot No. 38, which has resulted in prejudice being caused to the petitioners as now his area has lessened and also the number of chaks has been increased to three. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from CH Form-23 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that in the basic year khatauni, the petitioners had three plots of land and one half of one plot of land. Later on, when the chaks were proposed, his land was consolidated and he was given again four plots of land but at one and the same place and some part indeed of the land belonging to respondent No. 2 was taken away for carving out the second chak. However, respondent No. 2 did not stand to lose anything as in between his two chaks, respondent No. 2 had a chak road, which was advantageous not only to him but also to other villagers. Now, by the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has increased the number of plots of land that the petitioners were originally proposed to hold, thereby rendering the consolidation operations meaningless for them. 5. The respondent No. 2 is being represented by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Shukla. Now, by the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has increased the number of plots of land that the petitioners were originally proposed to hold, thereby rendering the consolidation operations meaningless for them. 5. The respondent No. 2 is being represented by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Shukla. He has pointed out that respondent No. 2 had continuously demanded that his Plot No. 38 be given to him right from the time when the Assistant Consolidation Officer had initially proposed such allotment upto the time of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, deciding the appeal. He was never heard anywhere and by means of the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has settled the issue by observing that all parties to the revision by means of following the allotment as given in the revisional order, would be given the benefit of getting chaks allotted on their own plots or land. It has been submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.1.2012 is on the whole just and should not be overturned by this Court. 6. This Court has perused the order impugned. It appears that after the Assistant Consolidation Officer's proposal, the Consolidation Officer and the appellate Court both had taken into account the actual position of the plots of land that were allotted to all the parties to the appeal and had found a more just solution to the problem. On the other hand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation without finding any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has interfered in the findings of the learned Courts below and has given a completely different allotment. 7. No doubt, under revisional jurisdiction under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in case any infirmity is shown in the order impugned by the revisionist, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can interfere and give his independent findings on facts of the case as placed before him. However, in this case, no infirmity was shown in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the orders passed by the learned Courts below only on the ground that by showing such interference, the parties would be allotted chaks on their original plots of land. 8. However, in this case, no infirmity was shown in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the orders passed by the learned Courts below only on the ground that by showing such interference, the parties would be allotted chaks on their original plots of land. 8. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the considered opinion of the Court, has far exceeded the jurisdiction granted to him to interfere in revision. 9. The order dated 13.1.2012 is set aside. 10. The chaks as allotted by the Consolidation Officer and affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, shall alone be shown as belonging to the parties to the said writ petition. 11. The writ petition stands allowed.