JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Gautam for respondent No. 3. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.11.2002 and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.7.2004 with a prayer that the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal should be affirmed by this Court. 3. It has been submitted by Sri O.P. Srivastava, who appears for petitioner that during consolidation operations, the petitioner had requested the Assistant Consolidation Officer to carve out his chak on his original holding on Plot No. 443 having an area of 320 acres, which was his largest plot. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted the petitioner chak on Gata Nos. 427 and 431, which were part of original holdings of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner filed objection for getting his chak on Gata No. 443 before the Consolidation Officer. The respondent No. 3 Ram Khelavan also filed his objection before the Consolidation Officer. The objection filed by respondent No. 3 was accepted and Gata Nos. 427 and 431 were given to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner's 3rd chak was allotted as udan chak on Gata No. 166. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16.11.2002 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation mainly on the ground that he could not appear before the Consolidation Officer at the time when objection filed by respondent No. 3 was being heard and that he was not issued any notice and his chaks had been disturbed. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the petitioner was given chak on Gata No. 427, which was the original holding of respondent No. 3 and Gata No. 431, which was the original holding of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The 3rd chak allotted to the petitioner as udan chak was done away with. 5. The respondent No. 3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 25.8.2003. In the said revision, the petitioner filed his objection, saying that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are necessary parties and they may also be impleaded as they had been given petitioner's Plot No. 443, which the petitioner wanted for himself. The respondent Nos. In the said revision, the petitioner filed his objection, saying that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are necessary parties and they may also be impleaded as they had been given petitioner's Plot No. 443, which the petitioner wanted for himself. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were thereafter impleaded, but they being very big farmers, persuaded the re-visional Court to get one of their plots of land left out as bachat land and to get land of Gata No. 443, which was the original holding of the petitioner, and which was being demanded by the petitioner all throughout as part of his chak. 6. Sri Dileep Kumar Gautam who appears for respondent No. 3, has referred to the order passed by the Appellate Court and also the order passed by the revisional Court. It is the case of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has already been given chaks over his two original gatas i.e. Gata Nos. 166 and 168. Instead of original six plots of land, the petitioner had been given a consolidated chak of two plots of land whereas the respondent No. 3 had been given chak on his original holding and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also able to get chak allotted on their original holding. The orders passed by the consolidation authorities are therefore justified and need no interference by this Court. 7. This Court has perused the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.11.2002 which refers to the objections filed under section 21(1) of the Act by respondent No. 3. In the said order, the Consolidation Officer refers to the fact that chak holders 214, 331 and 47 would be affected by the order passed by him on the application moved by Ram Khelavan, respondent No. 3. However, the stand of chak holders 214, 331 and 47 was not discussed. The petitioner was chak holder No. 47 and respondent No. 3 was chak holder No. 214. The petitioner wanted his chaks on his original Plot Nos. 432 and 443. He had, therefore, filed the appeal. 8. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority took into account the prayer made by the petitioner that he be given chak on his largest plot of land i.e. Plot No. 443 and some portion of Plot No. 432 also, and his udan chak be done away with. 432 and 443. He had, therefore, filed the appeal. 8. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority took into account the prayer made by the petitioner that he be given chak on his largest plot of land i.e. Plot No. 443 and some portion of Plot No. 432 also, and his udan chak be done away with. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.8.2003 took into account the fact that there were three objections to such appeal being filed; one by respondent No. 4, the other by respondent No. 3 and the third by one Babu Lal. He found that the appellant had been given chak on his original Plot No. 166 and a part of his original Plot No. 432. The 3rd chak had been allotted on Plot No. 427. He, therefore, directed that the 3rd chak allotted on 427 be done away with and the necessary correction be made in CH Form-23. 9. This Court has perused CH Form-23, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure to this petition. From the same, it is evident that originally the petitioner had small shares in atleast eight plots of land amounting to a little more than one hectare. The valuation of the plots was adjusted and then part of Plot Nos. 430, 431, 432 and 442 was taken away. He was given chak on two plots of land i.e. on Plot Nos. 166 and 168. The total area allotted to him was more or less the same with the same valuation as he originally possessed. Some part of Plot Nos. 214 and 168 however, was reserved as bachat. The petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner's original prayer in the appeal for grant of chak on Plot No. 443 had not been considered, filed his objection to the revision filed by respondent No. 3. The revision has been allowed by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.7.2004. 10. The Revisional Court's order has been read out by Sri Dileep Kumar Gautam. It says that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had inspected the area in question and got the same also measured. Plot No. 69/1 which was allotted to respondent No. 3 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was found to be submerged in water and, therefore, Plot No. 69/1 with valuation of Rs. 7.69 was done away with altogether and left for bachat. Plot No. 69/1 which was allotted to respondent No. 3 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, was found to be submerged in water and, therefore, Plot No. 69/1 with valuation of Rs. 7.69 was done away with altogether and left for bachat. Plot No. 427 that was initially allotted to the petitioner was taken and given to the revisionist as it was his original holding. The petitioner was compensated by giving him Plot No. 166/1. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that even the Revisional Authority did not consider the original request/prayer of the petitioner to be granted his share on chak of Plot No. 443 that was the largest plot of land in his holding. 12. This Court finds from the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority that substantial justice has been done in so far as the adjustment has been made with regard to not only the petitioner's original holding but that of Ram Khelavan and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is not necessary always to give chak on the largest plot of land of original holding to a tenure holder. It is only one of the factors under section 19 to be considered by the consolidation authorities. Since Ram Khelavan was genuinely aggrieved by the northern part of his original Plot No. 69 being submerged in water, the said plot was rightly left as Bachat. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Add Singh v. D.D.C. and others 1989 RD 200. In the said case, this Court observed that allotment of udan chak could be justified in view of the provisions of section 19(f) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act only if cogent reasons had been given by the authorities therefor. This Court had interfered in the order passed by the revisional Court as it had given no valid reasons for interference in the petitioner's chak at the appellate stage. The revisional Court had overruled the provisions of section 19(f) of the Act while interfering with the petitioner's chak. 14. This Court had interfered in the order passed by the revisional Court as it had given no valid reasons for interference in the petitioner's chak at the appellate stage. The revisional Court had overruled the provisions of section 19(f) of the Act while interfering with the petitioner's chak. 14. In the case of the petitioner herein, however, this Court finds that the revisional Court had made a local inspection and got measurement done of the areas allotted to various chak holders and found that Plot No. 69 was covered on the northern half with water and, therefore, difficult to cultivate. Therefore, it was left out as bachat land. 15. This Court has also perused the order sheet. Initially this Court had stayed the operation and implementation of the orders dated 16.11.2002 and 21.7.2004 till the next date of listing. Later on this order lapsed. With the passage of time, transfer of possession must have been made as this writ petition is also 15 years old. This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to direct restoration of status quo ante or to interfere in the impugned orders. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of.