JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri S.K. Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the judgement and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. By this order two revisions have been decided. Both the revisions have been allowed effecting the petitioner who is holder of chak no. 409. The revision was filed by the chak holder no. 470 wherein the chak of the petitioner has been effected. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had been allotted a chak on plot no. 396 etc. by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. This order has been reversed by the revisional court without assigning any reasons and, therefore, the order impugned is non speaking order and liable to be set-aside. 4. The other submission made by the learned counsel is that in the objection filed before the Consolidation Officer the contesting respondent had made a prayer that he be allotted a chak either on plot no. 384 or on plot no. 282, 283 and 284. The Consolidation Officer, therefore, allotted him a chak on plot nos. 282, 283 etc. The contesting respondent has been allotted a chak on plot no. 384, since this plot had also been demanded at the stage of the Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the appellate order was rightly passed and the same should not have been interfered with. 5. In this connection, I have perused the appellate order, it is totally bereft of any reasons and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed, does not appear to be justified. It is reiterated that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had not assigned any reason at all whatsoever for effecting the chak of the contesting respondents. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has in fact allowed the revision on the ground that by the modification made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the chak of the revisionist, Ashish Kumar and his mother Maya Devi, which should have been contiguous, had been rendered noncontinuous. He has rectified this mistake and allotted them contiguous chaks. 7. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has in fact allowed the revision on the ground that by the modification made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the chak of the revisionist, Ashish Kumar and his mother Maya Devi, which should have been contiguous, had been rendered noncontinuous. He has rectified this mistake and allotted them contiguous chaks. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the allotment is justified and that the petitioner wants much greater benefit that he is entitled to, by means of this writ petition. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record and as already noticed herein above, the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was totally bereft of any reasons. It is not therefore clear as to why the chak of the contesting respondents had been modified at the appellate stage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given cogent reasons for reversing this order. 9. I, therefore, find no illegality in the order impugned. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is, accordingly dismissed. ………………..