Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has arisen from the judgment and order dated 28th July 1983 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”) in Revision No. 1443 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1953”), whereby it has allowed revision and setting aside the orders dated 21.12.1982 of Consolidation Officer (for short “C.O.”) and dated 29.1.1983 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation (For short “S.O.C.”), has upheld the consolidation plan prepared by Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as “ACO”) in respect of plots No. 188, 164, 41, 158, 223, 71, 228, 153, 139 and 217.

2. The petitioner initially had two plots in Sector 4, one numbered as 50, area 2 Bighas 9 Biswas and 10 Biswansi and another number 30 area 2 Bighas, 2 Biswas and 4 Biswansi. It is said that plot No. 50 was adjacent to Abadi, close to main road. In consolidation proceedings, ACO alloted Chak No. 164 to petitioner which comprises of plots No. 48/M measuring 1 Biswa, 40/2M measuring 8/biswa 10 biswansi 40/2M measuring 1 Biswa 10 biswansi, 40/3M measuring 5 biswa, 46/2M measuring 10 Biswa 12 biswansi, 46/1 measuring 2 Bigha and 17 Biswa and plot No. 42/M measuring 4 Biswa 4 Biswansi. The petitioner filed objection that Chak No. 164 consists of Usar land and none of original plots formed part thereof, besides the fact that plot No. 50 of petitioner was near Abadi and adjacent to main road and all these things have been ignored. The C.O. vide order dated 21.12.1982 accepted the objection and directed to divide Sector 4 in two sub-sectors and therefrom plots No. 50 and 30 were allotted to petitioner. One Ram Saran who was originally alloted Chak No. 198 on plots No. 50 and 51 got affected by the said order which had resulted in reducing the area of Chak No. 198 and allotting original plot No. 50 therefrom to the petitioner. He however, did not prefer any appeal. Instead, petitioner filed appeal under Section 21(2) before SOC. However, there came five other appeals, i.e. No. 214, Ram Udit v. Gaon Sabha; 216, Abhay Raj v. Sukhraji; 217, Smt. Sukhraji v. Abhay Raj; 219, Udai Bhan v. Saran and 221, Mati Ram v. Avtar, which included the dispute relating to plots and chaks in dispute. Therefore, all were heard together alongwith petitioner’s appeal No. 213 and decided vide order dated 29.1.1983. Appeal No. 221 was dismissed. Appeal No. 219 was partly allowed and rest were allowed. SOC made respective amendments in the light of the directions contained in the last but one penultimate paragraph of the order, which would be discussed at a later stage, if necessity so arises.

3. Aggrieved thereby, three revisions were filed, being Revision No. 1358-Ram Laut v. State and others, 1443-Udai Bhan v. Ram Udit and others and 1514 Ram Awadh v. Saran and others, before DDC. All have been collectively decided by impugned order dated 28.7.1983.

4. Revisional Court after discussing entire things and having spot inspection found that initial allotment made by ACO did satisfy almost all the parties, except one i.e. the petitioner whereas alteration made by SOC resulted in colossal dispute amongst various parties. Therefore, it would be appropriate to restore the original plan and set aside the amendment as directed by C.O. And SOC and hence, both the orders were set aside.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that principles for allotment of Chaks to be followed in accordance with Section 19 of Act 1953 have not been adhered to. He has further contended that Rule 25 has not been complied with. The order by revisional authority is patently illegal as it has not considered grievance of petitioner that one of his plots was near Abadi and adjacent to main road. While allotting a Chak to petitioner, this aspect ought to have been considered. Besides, alleged chak cons