JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.92 and original holdings of the petitioner are plot nos. 116M, 117, 31 and 180, total area of 0.2880 hect. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 1st chak on plot no.31M, area 0.125 hect and 2nd chak on plot nos. 116M, 117M, 118M, 119M area 0.203 hectare total, area 0.328 hect. Respondent no.4 is chak holder no.211 and original holding of respondent no.4 is plot no.69, area 0.4820 hect. Respondent no.4 was proposed two chaks, 1st chak on plot no.15M and 51M, total area 0.488 hect and 2nd chak on 179M and 180M, area 0.355 hect. Respondent No.5 is chak holder no. 256 and original holding of respondent no. 5 are plot no. 180 & others. Respondent No. 5 was proposed chak on his original plot no. 180M alongwith other plots. Against the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed chak objection before the consolidation officer which was heard and the same was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2021. Against the order of the consolidation officer dated 22-12-2021, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "U.P. C.H. Act") which was dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2022. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.8.2023, hence, this instant writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 17.8.2023, 17.8.2022 & 22.12.2021 passed by the consolidation authorities. 3. This Court vide order dated 26.2.2024 has entertained the matter and issued notice to respondent nos. 4 & 5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.2.2024, respondent no.4 has filed his counter affidavit and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is original tenure holder of plot no.180, which is a good quality of land, as such, chak objection was filed by the petitioner, praying for allotment of the area on his original plot no.180, according to his share rather on plot nos. 116 & 117 which are not fit for cultivation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is original tenure holder of plot no.180, which is a good quality of land, as such, chak objection was filed by the petitioner, praying for allotment of the area on his original plot no.180, according to his share rather on plot nos. 116 & 117 which are not fit for cultivation. He submitted that chak objection/appeal/revision filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed in violation of the mandatory provision contained under Section-19 & 23 (iii) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as Rule 24 Gha of U.P.C.H. Rules. He further submitted that substantial area of plot no. 180 has been allotted to the contesting respondent in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that plot No. 180 is situated near the house of the petitioner as such petitioner cannot be deprived from plot no. 180. He also submitted that petitioner has taken specific ground in the grounds of revision for allotment of second chak on plot no.180 rather on plot nos. 116, 117, 118, & 119. He submitted that specific grounds taken in the grounds of revision, has not been considered and the revision has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the consolidation authorities be set aside and the petitioner's claim be examined afresh for allotment of chak on his original plot No. 180 according to the ground set up in the objection/appeal/revision. 5. On the other hand, Sri. Ram Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that petitioner was proposed two chaks on their original plots, as such, the chak objection/appeal/revision filed by the petitioner, has been rightly rejected. He also submitted that it is not necessary that every chak holder be allotted their all the original plots. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has assigned the reason in support of the order, as such, no interference is required in the matter. He also submitted that 2nd chak was proposed to respondent no.4 on plot nos. 179 & 180 in accordance with law. He further submitted that if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted then the petitioner will be allotted some other plots but no other tenure holder has been impleaded in the chak objection/chak appeal and chak revision, as such, no further adjustment can be made by the consolidation authorities. 179 & 180 in accordance with law. He further submitted that if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted then the petitioner will be allotted some other plots but no other tenure holder has been impleaded in the chak objection/chak appeal and chak revision, as such, no further adjustment can be made by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that plot no.180 is the original holding of the petitioner but petitioner was not proposed chak on plot no.180. There is also no dispute about the fact that chak objection/appeal/revision filed by the petitioner for allotment of chak on his original plot No. 180 have been dismissed by the consolidation authorities. 8. The perusal of C.H. Form 23 of the respective parties demonstrate that plot no.180 originally belong to the petitioner. The chak objection/appeal/revision were filed by the petitioner, seeking allotment of chak on plot no.180, according to his share, on the ground that second chak allotted on plot No. 116 & 117 are not good quality plot, as such, petitioner is to be adjusted on his original plot no.180 according to his share rather on plot No. 116 & 117. The consolidation authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner has been allotted two chaks on their original plots. It is also material that the substantial area of plot no.180 has been allotted to respondent no.4 who is not the original tenure holder of plot no.180. 9. The ground No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 set up in the revision filed under section - 48 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant for perusal which are as under :- 10. The perusal of the grounds of revision also reveals that plots which have been allotted to the petitioner, are not good quality plot, as such, petitioner claims for allotment on his original plot no.180 which is a good quality plot, has been allotted to respondent No.4 who is not original tenure holder of plot No. 180. 11. The perusal of the grounds of revision also reveals that plots which have been allotted to the petitioner, are not good quality plot, as such, petitioner claims for allotment on his original plot no.180 which is a good quality plot, has been allotted to respondent No.4 who is not original tenure holder of plot No. 180. 11. Considering the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the matter requires reconsideration by the revisional court, with respect to allotment of chak in respect to plot no.180. 12. So far as the non-impleadment of the other tenure holders are concerned, the petitioner can file appropriate application in revision for impleadment of the tenure holder who will be affected by the order in any manner. 13. Since the service of notice upon respondent No. 5 - Sita Ram is not sufficient in the instant petition, as such, Deputy Director of Consolidation shall issue notice to Sita Ram also before deciding the chak revision. 14. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this Court for affecting service upon respondent No.5 as matter requires reconsideration of chak dispute by revisional Court under Section-48 of U.P.C.H. Act who will afford opportunity of hearing to every tenure holder including respondent nos-4 & 5 before passing final order. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.8.2023 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 16. The writ petition stands allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.1/Addl. Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sant Kabir Nagar or any other competent authority having revisional jurisdiction to register the revision on its original number and decide the same afresh, taking into consideration the claim of the petitioner for allotment in respect to the plot no.180 afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, i.e. the petitioner, respondent nos. 4 & 5 as well as other tenure holder, who will be affected by the adjustment under the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before him.