JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Chaudhary M.H. Khan for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3247 of 2015 and for the respondent in the connected writ petition. I have heard Shri Dinesh Pathak for the respondent in the instant writ petition and for the petitioner in the connected writ petition. 2. The writ petition no. 3247 of the 2015 arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the revisional order dated 12.12.2014 whereby two revisions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 535 which in the basic year was recorded in the name of the parties. He submits that the share of the parties has been held to 0.59 air each in this plot. 4. The petitioner appears to have filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming allotment of this plot commensurate to his share as his house exists therein. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 25.01.2013 rejected the objection. 5. In appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 29.04.2013 allowed the appeal partly and allotted 0.017 air of this plot in the chak of the petitioner. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision claiming that the entire area of his share allotted in his chak since his house existed therein. This revision has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the finding that the petitioner-revisionist has been allotted a chak on his original holdings in accordance with his share and the nature of land itself. He, therefore, dismissed the revision holding that no modification in the chaks was required. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is only that since his share in plot no. 535 was 0.59 air, the entire area should have proposed in his chak. In case, the demand of the every tenure-holder for allotment of the entire area of his original in his chak during the consolidation operation is accepted the consolidation operations would an impossibility. For this reason alone, I find no justification for interfering in the impugned revisional order. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The connected writ petition no. 47677 of 2015 has been filed by Ehsan Ashraf seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. For this reason alone, I find no justification for interfering in the impugned revisional order. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The connected writ petition no. 47677 of 2015 has been filed by Ehsan Ashraf seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to effect delivery of possession to him over the area of plot no. 535 allotted in his chak. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that delivery of possession is not being effected, at the instance of Sayeed Ahmad, petitioner in the other writ petition and on account of pendency of writ no. 3247 of 2015. It was on account of this submission that this Court, vide order dated 04.09.2015 had directed that both these cases were listed showing names of their respective counsel. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and since, the writ petition no. 3247 of 2015 having been found to be devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed, there appears no impediment in issuing a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent no. 2 in writ petition no. 47677 of 2015, to ensure delivery of possession to the parties in accordance with the final orders passed in chak allotment proceedings. 10. Accordingly writ petition no. 3247 of 2015 is dismissed while writ petition no. 47677 of 2015 is allowed directing the respondents to ensure delivery of possession in pursuance of the final orders passed during the consolidation operations in chak allotment proceedings.