The revisional authority must consider the grounds on which the order was passed by the Appellate Authority and assign reasons for not accepting it.

By this petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 12. 9. 94 passed by Joint Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. On 14. 2. 95 order was passed making it clear that if considered proper the case will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The service on unserved respondents has been held to be sufficient by an order passed by me today and the writ petition has been finally heard as counter affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit stand exchanged.

2. The facts essential to determine countroversy are that chak allotted to petitioner is numbered as 274. It is joint chak with his brothers Tarwez Ahmad and Mohammad Mister, who have been impleaded as respondents in this peti tion. Originally, petitioner was not allotted any part of his original holding at plot No. 516 which had an area of 600 Karis. It is near Abadi. When the petitioner sought its allotment in his chak, the Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted claim of petitioner and modified petitioners chak by allotting an area of 150 Karis of plot No. 516 in it. The ground on which this allotment was made by Settlement Officer Consolidation is that this plot is situated near Abadi and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to it in accordance with his share in the plot. The chak of Smt. Saidun Nishan was also effected by this adjustment when an area of 890 Karis of plot No. 516-m was taken out and she was allotted 101 Karis of plot No. 536-m Smt. Saidun Nishan aggrieved by the order filed revision. Parwez Ahmad still remained dissatisfied in respect of allotment and he also filed revision. He was dissatisfied as his share in plot No. 516 was 240 karis but he was allotted only 101 karis. The Joint Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by Smt. Saidun Nishan for the reason that she was a small tenure holder and there was no justification for allotting two chaks to Smt. Saidun Nishan. While allowing the revision filed by Smt. Saidun Nishan, the Joint Direc tor of Consolidation dismissed the revision of petitioner and restored the order of Consolidation Officer putting parties in same position which existed on pass ing of order by Consolidation Officer.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner has not been allotted chak on plot No. 516 or on any other plot near abadi and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for allotment near abadi. The learned counsel for contesting respondent, while opposing the petition advanced three-fold arguments. Firstly, he argued that petitioner was given four chaks which could not be given as it is against the principle of compactness when compactness is to be followed in making allotment of chaks. It has been argued that the contesting respondent was a small tenure holder and was to be given one compact chak at one place instead of two chaks. Second argument is that the trees planted by contesting respon dents stand over plot No. 516 and, therefore, the contesting respondent is en titled for chak at that plot. Beside justifying chak on said grounds, lastly it has been argued that substantial justice has been done between the parties and, therefore, order of Joint Director of Consolidation be upheld.

4. There is force in the argument advanced. It is not unknown that land near abadi has much value. The interference by Settlement Officer Consolidation on such a ground cannot be said to be irrelevant. As the Settlement Officer Con solidation granted relied to petitioner keeping in view this aspect, it was not open for Joint Director of Consolidation to completely ignore this aspect in deciding revisions. The Joint Director of Consolidation has taken into considera tion the fact that Smt. Saidun Nishan is a small tenure holder and the impugned order can be validly justified for making allotment of a compact area to contest ing respondent but it was incumbent in this case for revisional authority to meet the ground on which order was passed by Appellate Authority. This legal prin ciple has not been fo