JUDGMENT

K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-1-1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision u/s 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) arising out of proceedings u/s 20 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are as follows:

Petitioner, chak holder No. 4, was allotted three chaks in Sector Nos. 31,32 and 34. A second chak measuring 2.10 acres is said to have been allotted to him in Sector No. 32. It ran just across the chak road in the eastern side to the chak road. He was allotted this chak near his residential house and on the other side of Sector-Road in Sector No. 32, he was allotted said second chat measuring 2 10 acres as aforesaid. In Sector No. 34 Petitioner was allotted a small chak measuring 0.74 acres. It was also situate across the chak road.

2. An objection was filed by the Petitioner u/s 20 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer wherein he had prayed that he be allotted a chak east-west long taking plot No. 1855 etc. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Petitioner was allotted second chak on plot No. 150 etc. measuring 2.10 acres. In the objection, therefore, he had requested that this chak be made east-west long This objection was considered by the Consolidation Officer along with certain other objections of other tenure holders and vide order dated 19-5-1982, the Petitioner's chaks were altered. The Petitioner thereupon filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who decided the appeal vide order dated 07.02.1983 along with certain other appeals. By this order the Petitioner's chaks were altered as per amendment chart appended to the order, a certified copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. By this order alteration was made in the Petitioner's chak allotted in Sector Nos. 31 and 32. Still feeling aggrieved the Petitioner bad preferred revision which was heard along with certain other revisions filed by other tenure holders, i.e. Ram Kumar and Ram Piarey These three revisions were disposed of by judgment and order dated 21-1-1985 and by it the Petitioner's chak was suitably altered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. His third small chak measuring 0.74 acres in Sector NJ 34 was abolished and he was allotted chak in lieu thereof in Sector No. 32. The Petitioner has, thus, been allotted two chaks by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This order has been challenged by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner firstly contended that by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the area of the Petitioner's chak has been reduced by more than 25 per cent of the land originally held by the Petitioner. This, according to him, could not be done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation being violative of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. I do not find any merit in this contention.

4. It is not disputed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order after giving hearing to the parties. He has given cogent reasons for making alteration in the chaks of the Petitioner with that of opposite party No. 2 Ram Kumar Thus, in the process of adjustment of chaks made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding revisions he could allot chaks to the parties, which he may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case in exercise of powers u/s 48 of the Act. The reduction in the allotted area to the extent of 28 per cent from that of the original holding appears to have occurred on account of the fact that the Petitioner has been allotted better quality of land of exchange ratio of 12 annals as against land taken out from his chak which was valued at exchange ratio of 8-10 annals, and, as such, allotment was made by the Deputy Director or Consolidation as he had found quite appropriate to do so and I find appropriate alteration has been made by the Deputy Di