JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Shri V.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.C. Singh for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.4.2015 passed in chak allotment proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak of plot No. 133. Plot No. 133 (area of 0.300 hectare) was the original holding of Lalta Prasad, (now, represented by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5). It is admitted to the parties that this plot is situated on road side. Plot No. 132 is the original holding of the petitioner, which is also situated on road side. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Lalta Prasad and others were allotted chak Plot No. 133, however, an area of 0.096 hectare of plot No. 133 was left as Bachat land. Lalta Prasad and others filed objections for allotment of entire area of plot No. 133 in their chaks In these objections, a report has been called for from the Consolidator, but in the meantime, the objections were misplaced somewhere. The other chak objections of the village have been decided by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.1.1994. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by order dated 2.6.2004 allowed the appeal and allotted the Bachat Land of an area of 0.096 hectare of Plot No. 133 to the petitioners and in-lieu of it Plot No. 24 was left as Bachat Land. Thereafter, Lalta Prasad filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the revision who by order dated 27.4.2015 allowed the revision and allotted area of 0.096 of Plot No. 133 in the Chak of Lalta Prasad. Hence, this petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an area of 0.096 of Plot No. 133 was Bachat Land and it was lying near to the chak of the petitioners on Plot No. 132. Hence, this petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an area of 0.096 of Plot No. 133 was Bachat Land and it was lying near to the chak of the petitioners on Plot No. 132. In the circumstances, the petitioners filed an appeal for allotment of Bachat Land, in their chak and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allowed the appeal and allotted area of 0.096 hectare of Plot No. 133 in the Chak of the petitioners but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision and set-aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 6. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation shows that Lalta Prasad has raised a dispute before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that he had filed an objection for allotment of Bachat land of Plot No. 133 in his chak. The objection was noted in the judgment but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has not adverted or given any reason for not accepting the arguments of Lalta Prasad. He allowed the appeal only on the ground that Plot No. 124 was the original holding of the petitioners and situated on road side but the petitioners were not allotted chak on Plot No. 124. So far as Plot No. 124 is concerned, the petitioners were co-sharer in this plot and it was allotted in the chaks of other co-sharers of the petitioners and the petitioners have not impleaded other co-sharers as opposite party in the appeal or in the revision. As such claim of the petitioners for allotment of chak on Plot No. 124 cannot be considered. 7. So far as Plot No. 133 is concerned, it is the original holding of the Lalta Prasad and situated on road side. Under circular of Consolidation Commissioner, U.P, as well as under the well-settled law of this Court, a road side land is liable to be allotted to the original tenure holder. Thus, it has been rightly allotted to Lalta Prasad by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 9. The, writ petition has no merit, it is accordingly dismissed.