Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;- The petition arises out of a chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the adjustment Chart. 3. The petitioners were initially proposed chaks at the Assistant Consolidation Officer's level on which objections were filed and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 5th March, 2010 came to the conclusion that the chaks need to be allotted accordingly. On the basis of the survey map a chak Nali was given over Plot No. 53 which was triangular in shape. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners' claim has been jeopardized on account of the fact that had the petitioner been allotted land in the South of Plot No.56, their claim in relation to the land besides the road could be adjusted. 5. It is further submitted that the contesting respondents have been allotted over Plot No.50 and 51 and other Plots across the road whereas Plot No.53 has been left out for Chak Nali. 6. In essence the argument is that so far as the petitioners' allotment is concerned, the same is against the Consolidation Scheme and the Chak Nali could have been modified to the extent of adjusting the petitioners' land for getting the land besides the road. 7. Having considered the submissions, the shape of Chak No.53 being triangular in nature, it was rightly left out under the consolidation scheme for Chak Nali. There is nothing on record to indicate as to how the petitioners could have been adjusted beyond Plot No.56 towards the South of the said Plot. The adjustment which has, therefore, been carried out, has been done in the larger interest of the allottees and, therefore, no interference is called for in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Needless to say that Plot No.53 is not the original holding of the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed.