JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, District-Mirzapur (respondent No. 1), the Order dated 17.8.2002 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Mirzapur and the Order dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Narain Pur, District-Mirzapur (respondent No. 3). 2. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that a chak road was carved out from Plot Nos. 215 and 176. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed objections .before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the valuation of Plot No. 176, which was the original Plot of the said respondents, had not been taken into consideration in the allotment of chak to the said respondents. The Consolidation Officer by the Order dated 24.12.1997 accepted the objections raised by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and held that it was necessary to include the valuation of Plot No. 176, namely, 50 paise in the allotment of chak to the said respondents. Accordingly, the variation in various chaks were made. Copy of the order dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the ground that as a result of the Order dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, width of the chak road had been reduced to 8 Kari, i.e., 6 1/2 ft., and it would not be possible to move’ tractors etc. on such a narrow chak road. 4. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the Order dated 17.8.2002 dismissed the aforesaid Appeal filed by the petitioner. It was, interalia, held that a chak road of 15 Acres was still there, which was justified. Copy of the Order dated 17.8.2002 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner thereupon filed a Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, District-Mirzapur, which was numbered as Revision No. 405/1152 of 2002. 6. The petitioner again reiterated that the width of the chak road was too narrow, and it would not be possible for the tractors etc. to pass through the said road. 6. The petitioner again reiterated that the width of the chak road was too narrow, and it would not be possible for the tractors etc. to pass through the said road. 7. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, District-Mirzapur by the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.2003 dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner. 8. The Deputy Director, Consolidation accepted the reasoning given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that a chak road of 15 Acres was still existing, which was justified. 9. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 10. Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been filed. The petitioner has also filed Rejoinder Affidavit. 11. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage. 12. I have heard Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and perused the record. 13. It is submitted by Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below have not appreciated that the chak road in question was too narrow, and it would not be possible for the tractors etc. to pass through the said road. 14. Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the chak road in question is wide enough, namely, 15 Acres, and the tractors etc. can pass through the same easily. 15. Sri J.P. Pandey refers to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 5, 8 and 11 of the Counter Affidavit in this regard. 16. In Rejoinder, Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his submissions made earlier. He has referred to the averments made in the Rejoinder Affidavit in reply to the aforesaid paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit, wherein the petitioner has reiterated his stand ‘ regarding the chak road in question being too narrow for the tractors etc. to pass through the said road. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the width of the chak road is sufficient for the tractors etc. to pass through the same, is basically a question of fact. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the width of the chak road is sufficient for the tractors etc. to pass through the same, is basically a question of fact. The authorities below on a consideration of the material on record have come to the conclusion that the width of the chak road is sufficient. 18. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. No interference is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the impugned Orders. 19. The Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ————