JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and is directed against the revisional order dated 27.10.2015. 3. By this order, a revision filed by the contesting respondent has been allowed while the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. It would be relevant to note that the petitioner and the respondents are both the co-tenure holders. The revision of the contesting respondent has been allowed on the reasoning that by the modifications proposed, both parties would get two chaks each, near their abadi and also appurtenant to the chak road. Both the chaks allotted to the parties would also be of very similar and valuation. 4. As far as the revision of the petitioner is concerned, it has been dismissed on the ground that the demand of the petitioner that the chak allotted on plot nos. 26, 27, 110, 145, 145 and 148 etc. be abolished and be resultant evaluation be given in the chak on plot no. 134 and 133 etc was not justified as the chak aforesaid on plot no. 26 and 27 has already been acquired for constructions a bridge and that the petitioner has already been paid compensation for such acquisition. 5. As regards other demands of the petitioner, it has been stated that in case the said prayer is allowed, chak holders nos. 457, 293 who are small tenure holders will be disturbed from their original holdings and would also be deprived of the use of the chak road, which is not desirable. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record, I see no illegality in the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, both for allowing the revision of the contesting respondent and for dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.