JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional court disturbed the chak allotted by the Settlement Officer (c) on the ground that the chak allotted to the opposite parties was 120 feet long and 12 feet wide and the same chak has been allotted to the petitioner little caring that it would be arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that three chaks were alloted in the same sector which is against the instructions and rules under the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. 3. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision petition filed by Daya Ram was beyond time yet without addressing to the question of limitation the revisional court allowed the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him neither the revision petition was beyond time nor three chaks were allotted to the petitioner by the impugned judgment of the revisional court and that the allegation of the petitioner that he has got a chak 12 feet in length and 12 feet wide is also not quite correct. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit I find that the petitioner has failed to take a definite stand and has failed to provide necessary materials to demonstrate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Since the writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and at the stage I see no justification for granting time to the petitioner to file evidence in support of his contention. The determination of the writ petition on the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner involves probe into the disputed question of fact which is not permissible in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent error of law in the impugned judgment, therefore, I consider that this writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. 6. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but there would be no order as to costs. The stay order dated 26-4-85 stands discharged. 6. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but there would be no order as to costs. The stay order dated 26-4-85 stands discharged. In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad