JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Krishan Ji Khare learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. S. Misra appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act , 1953. An objection was filed by the petitioners Under Section 9-B claiming that the chak road be carved out in plots No. 125 and 126 belonging to the contesting respondents after valuing the same. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection and valued part of both the plots as 90 paisa and carved out a chak road of three meters wide in both the plots. Appeal was filed both by respondents No. 7 to 9 and respondents No. 3 to 6 challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer. It was stated in the appeal that no notice of objection was received by the appellants and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is ex parte. It was further stated that the plots No. 125 and 126 are chak out plots of the appellants in which they have their trees and Abadi. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation held spot inspection and after spot inspection allowed both the appeals vide order dated 25.3.2006. Two revisions were filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which, too, have been dismissed by the judgement and order dated 3.7.2006. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the chak road was rightly given by the Consolidation Officer. He contended that there is no other chak road from which the petitioners can go out from the village Abadi and reach the approach road. He contended that the view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the chak road cannot be given for the benefit of an individual tenure holder, is not correct. He placed reliance on the judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (100) R.D. 682, Asha Ram Misra and others v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and another. He contended that the view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the chak road cannot be given for the benefit of an individual tenure holder, is not correct. He placed reliance on the judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (100) R.D. 682, Asha Ram Misra and others v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and another. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a chak map filed as Annexure-R.A.1 to the rejoinder affidavit. 4. Sri R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents refuting the contention of the petitioners’ counsel contended that there is already two ‘Rastas’ for the villagers to out from the village Abadi and reach the approach road. He contended that one chak road is in plot No. 122 and another in plot No. 128. Sri R. S. Misra has also referred to chak map filed along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-CA-2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that there being already chak road for coming out from, the village Abadi, other chak road for giving benefit to one family i.e. the petitioners, cannot be granted. Sri Misra placed reliance on the judgement of the apex Court reported in 2000(91) R.D. 225, Ramanand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. Sri Misra further contended that no notice was given to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer and the order of the Consolidation Officer was in fact ex parte. He contended that the Consolidation Officer has wrongly observed that the prayer of the petitioners has not been opposed by the tenure holders. 5. I have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 6. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of petitioners. The Consolidation Officer in his order has noted that the tenure holders of plot No. 125 have only orally objected and no objection has been filed by Deo Prakash and other tenure holders of plot No. 126. It has been brought on record that the suit was filed by the petitioners in the civil Court being suit No. 106 of 2001 against the contesting respondents in which an interim order was obtained which was subsequently vacated. The respondents were original tenure holders of plots and there was no question their only orally objecting the chak road. It has been brought on record that the suit was filed by the petitioners in the civil Court being suit No. 106 of 2001 against the contesting respondents in which an interim order was obtained which was subsequently vacated. The respondents were original tenure holders of plots and there was no question their only orally objecting the chak road. The Consolidation Officer further in his order observed that the Sampark Marg from the Abadi is far away which causes difficulties to the objectors. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation had made inspection in presence of both the parties and the villagers. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has recorded specific finding that from the main road there are two ‘Rastas’ goin into Abadi and the Consolidation Officer has passed the order for giving chak road for only benefiting the objectors. The ‘Rasta’ which has been given by the Consolidation Officer is useful for only one family. The said findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are also substantiated from the copy of the chak map filed by the respondents along with Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. Bare perusal of the chak map indicate that there are two approach ‘Rasta from road to Abadi one going between the plots No. 122 and 124 and another between the plots No. 128 and 129. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to refute the said map on basis of another chak map filed by him along with the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure-1. He submits that in the said chak map these two ‘Rastas1 have not been shown. The chak map filed by the petitioners is not different than the chak map filed by the respondents with their counter affidavit. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation on spot inspection has recorded categorical finding that there are two ‘Rastas’ to go in the village Abadi from the road. The Consolidation Officer has not recorded any finding that there is no other ‘Rasta’ from village Abadi to road rather he had observed that the ‘Rasta’ is far away which causes inconvenience to the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer has not recorded any finding that there is no other ‘Rasta’ from village Abadi to road rather he had observed that the ‘Rasta’ is far away which causes inconvenience to the petitioners. In so far as the judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Asha Ram Misra and others v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and another (supra) in which it has been held that there is no bar under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to give any benefit to an individual tenure holder for providing chak Nali and chak road, there cannot be any dispute to the said proposition. Individual can be given benefit of chak nali and chak road if facts of the case so require e.g. In a case where the tenure holder has no chak road to come out from his house chak road can obviously be provided for him and chak road cannot be provided only for convenience of a particular tenure holder. Present is not a case where there is no chak road to come out from the village Abadi to the link road. There being already two ‘Rastas’ as have been found by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation there was no justification for giving chak road by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also considered all aspects of the matter and has not erred in dismissing the revisions filed by the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also observed in his order that at the time of preparation of statement of principles neither there was any proposal for giving chak road in question nor Consolidation Committee gave any such approval. Plots No. 125 and 126 both were chak out plots and in plots No. 125 and 126 the trees and Abadi of the respondents have been found. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not commit any error in allowing the appeal filed by the contesting respondents which order has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. Plots No. 125 and 126 both were chak out plots and in plots No. 125 and 126 the trees and Abadi of the respondents have been found. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not commit any error in allowing the appeal filed by the contesting respondents which order has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. The judgement relied by Sri R.S. Misra in Rama Nand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and another (supra) also do support the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the chak road to an individual can only be given when there is no road available for his approach. Following observations were made by the apex Court in the said Judgement : “Obviously, the appellate authority will take into consideration whether any road is available to respondent No. 3 or not. If no road is available for approaching his land, then suitable modification will have to be made in the Scheme.” 7. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ———