Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition brings to this Court some dispute relating to allotment of Chaks pursuant to the consolidation proceedings in village turki under Chenari police station in the district of Rohtas. It appears that at the draft stage the petitioner was given chak Nos.81/ga 1, 2 and 3 whereas respondents 4 and 5 were given Chak no.66/11. Respondent No.6 filed an objection before the Consolidation officer and on his objection, Chak No.66/11, initially allotted to respondents 4 and 5 were taken away from them and some other chak was given to them in its place. The re-allotment of chaks had also affected the petitioner to the extent that 81/ga (2) initially allotted to the petitioner was given to respondent No.6. The dispute arising from the re-allotment of chak was finally taken by respondents 4 and 5 to the Joint director Consolidation who found that the final arrangement made by the consolidation Officer was in accordance with law and the amendments made by the appellate authority were untenable. He accordingly set aside the appellate order and directed that respondents 4 and 5 be given chak No.66/2 adjacent south to chak No.55/3 and thereafter chak No.81/2 Ga should be constituted which would go to the petitioner. He accordingly directed the corrections be made in the chak panji and chak map. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made long submissions regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and inconveniences caused to him on account of the directions given by the Joint Director Consolidation in the impugned order. All the submissions are purely based on facts and unfortunately it is not possible for this court to go into the factual details concerning the allotment of chaks in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. When it was pointed out to the counsel, he submitted that the chaks were finally allotted under Sec.12 and the scheme had been confirmed under Sec.13 of the Act; delivery of possession of the respective chaks had been given to the tenants and the tenants were in possession of their respective chaks and at that state it was no longer open to the Joint Director consolidation to pass any orders effecting any alterations or changes in the allotment of chaks. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the factual position has been strongly controverted. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the factual position has been strongly controverted. The allegation that the raiyats were given delivery of possession of their respective chaks is said to be false. It is further stated that, in fact, even the khatiyan had not been delivered to the raiyats. The measurements and demarcations of the chak plots were also yet to be made. Hence, the question of giving delivery of possession of the chaks to the raiyats did not arise. All the raiyats were still cultivating their small plots. In support of these statements, certificates from the members of the Village advisory Committee, the local Mukhiya, the Sarpanch and other persons have been annexed as Annexure a series. In that view, I find it difficult to accept the petitioners assertion that delivery of possession of the respective chaks were made in favour of the raiyats. More so, as no order under Sec.13 of the Act has been brought on record by the petitioner. 5. It was thereafter submitted that respondents 4 and 5 were not parties before the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority and hence they could not file a revision-petition before the Joint Director Consolidation. I find no substance in this submission either. Without going into the question whether respondents 4 and 5 were parties before the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was perfectly open to them to move the Joint Director Consolidation inasmuch as they were adversely affected by the appellate order and, therefore, had a right to file a revision petition for its rectification. 6. No other point was urged on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. Application Dismissed.