ORDER R. M. Sahai, J. - Aggrieved by alteration of his chaks by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 48 of U. P. Conoslidation of Holdings Act petitioner has come to this Court. It is urged that the Deputy Director committed manifest error of law in allotting chaks without keeping in mind provisions of S. 19 of the Act. Non-application of mind is also claimed because the Deputy Director maintained same order which was passed by him before hearing petitioner. 2. None of the submissions entitle petitioner to seek a writ of certiorari from this Court. What happened that in revision of one Kamal Singh, who incidentally, has not been impleaded in this petition and who had not impleaded petitioner as party the Deputy Director passed an order on 23-9-1981 altering chak of Kamal Singh, petitioner and opposite party. This order was recalled as it was passed without hearing petitioner. And a fresh order was passed on 3-2-1982 but alterations made earlier were maintained. The Deputy Director observed that Kamal Singh was given two chaks at the same place and in between these two chaks the chak of opposite party was framed. This according to him was neither reasonable nor proper. Kamal Singh could be given one chak at one place and opposite party who also was not satisfied with his chak which was in between two chaks of Kamal Singh could be shifted. He was allotted chak on plot numbers 440, 441, and 442 and it was observed that chak-holders of these plots had no grievance against it. Petitioner was allotted one chak at plot Nos. 384, 385 and 386 which were his original holding. While shifting him to these plots the Deputy Director observed that he was a big tenure-holder and no substantial injury shall be caused to him if he is allotted two instead of one chak. In the supplementary affidavit filed it is claimed by petitioner that as the distance in two chaks allotted to him was one kilometres it was inconvenient to him. Assuming it to be correct the question is whether Deputy Director of Consolidation committed any error of law which can be corrected by issuing writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the supplementary affidavit filed it is claimed by petitioner that as the distance in two chaks allotted to him was one kilometres it was inconvenient to him. Assuming it to be correct the question is whether Deputy Director of Consolidation committed any error of law which can be corrected by issuing writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out that Deputy Director of Consolidation while ordering alterations in the chaks contravened any of the provisions of the Act or Rules. It may be that allotment which has been made or alterations which have been directed to be made may not be very convenient to petitioner but that alone cannot be a ground for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. This petition was heard on 3-8-1982. After perusing village map produced by learned counsel for petitioner the hearing of the case was adjourned to enable him to file the map or supplementary affidavit indicating the situation of the plots and the manner in which the present allotment was prejudicial to him. No supplementary affidavit has been filed and reliance has been placed on supplementary affidavit, reference of which has been made above. In absence of any material to show that the present allotment was in any manner prejudicial to petitioner or unjust the order of Deputy Director cannot be quashed only because it was inconvenient to petitioner. 4. The objection that Deputy Director only formally set aside his earlier order is also not correct. He has applied his mind to argument advanced on behalf of petitioner but he did not find any reason to change the order. The order cannot be characterised as arbitrary or passed without application of mind. 5. A preliminary objection was also raised by learned counsel for opposite party that as Deputy Director had passed an order in the revision of Kamal Singh the effect of which was that land taken out from the chak of Kamal Singh was given to opposite party and the land of opposite pary was given to petitioner. According to learned counsel Kamal Singh was a necessary party and in his obsence the petition cannot be decided effectively. As alterations in chak of petitioner and opposite party were made in revision of Kamal Singh he was definitely necessary party. According to learned counsel Kamal Singh was a necessary party and in his obsence the petition cannot be decided effectively. As alterations in chak of petitioner and opposite party were made in revision of Kamal Singh he was definitely necessary party. Petitioner cannot be heard saying that as his land has been allotted to opposite party he was not required to implead Kamal Singh. 6. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to