JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, for the petitioner and Sri L.P. Singh, holding brief of Sri Bachcha Singh, for the contesting respondents-3 to 5. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 4.9.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.2.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner has further prayed for issue of mandamus directing consolidation authorities to treat that plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was allotted in his chak and to delete its double allotment from the chak of respondents-3 to 5. 2. The dispute relates to allotment of chak on plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) of village Jangal Oon, pargana Maghar Purab, district Sant Kabir Nagar. The land in dispute was earlier Gaon Sabha land. The petitioner was granted patta of an area of 0.034 hectare of plot 221/13. Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya were also granted patta of different area of plot 221/13 of its remaining area. During partal, agricultural activity was not found on any part of plot 221/13 and its total area was parati on the spot and recorded as such in CH Form-2-A. From the stage of Statement of Principle, valuation of entire area of 0.111 hectare of plot 221/13 was determined at the rate of 20 paisa. None of the co-sharers of plot 221/13, including the petitioner, filed any objection under section 9 of the Act, against its valuation. 3. It is alleged that in Provisional Consolidation Scheme, plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was allotted in the chak-123 of the petitioner and chak-1807 of respondents-3 to 5. The petitioner filed an objection on 2.6.2010 under section 20 of the Act, stating therein that plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was his original holding, on which he had planted 5 shisham tree, 2 babul tree, one mahuwa and one neem tree. From very beginning, plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was allotted in his chak-123 of the petitioner. Respondents-3 to 5 (chak-1807) were influential persons. Exercising their political influence, they also got plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) allotted in their chak-1807 and the consolidation authorities made endorsement in this respect, in CH Form-2-A of plot 221/13 and did not endorse, chak of the petitioner in it. Respondents-3 to 5 (chak-1807) were influential persons. Exercising their political influence, they also got plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) allotted in their chak-1807 and the consolidation authorities made endorsement in this respect, in CH Form-2-A of plot 221/13 and did not endorse, chak of the petitioner in it. It was prayed for deleting plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) from the chak of respondents-3 to 5 and upholding its allotment in the chak of the petitioner and correcting endorsement of CH Form-2-A. 4. Respondents-2 to 5 also filed an objection on 30.6.2010, stating therein that plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was situated in front of their house. From very beginning plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was allotted in their chak-1807 and endorsement in this respect was made, in CH Form-2-A of plot 221/13. Subsequently the petitioner also got it allotted in his chak. They also prayed for deleting plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) from the chak of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer heard the objection of respondents-3 to 5 and by order dated 7.7.2010 held that as chak objections of the village have already been decided from his stage and appeals were pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation as such he had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of double allotment. On these findings, objection of respondents-3 to 5 was rejected. 5. Respondents-3 to 5 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 193) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 4.9.2010, held that the land in dispute was earlier Gaon Sabha land. The petitioner was granted patta of an area of 0.034 hectare of plot 221/13. Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya were also granted patta of remaining area of plot 221/13. During partal, agricultural activities were not found on any part of plot 221/13 and its total area was parati on the spot and recorded as such in CH Form-2-A. This plot situates in front of the house of respondent-3 to 5 and has been used by them as sahan land. In case, it is allotted to the petitioner, then there will be dispute forever between the parties. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and deleted plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) from the chak of the petitioner and in lieu of it, the petitioner has been allotted chak on plots 211/4, 211/7 and 214. In case, it is allotted to the petitioner, then there will be dispute forever between the parties. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and deleted plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) from the chak of the petitioner and in lieu of it, the petitioner has been allotted chak on plots 211/4, 211/7 and 214. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 20206/2012) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.2.2015, dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) was original holding of the petitioner and his other co-sharers. This plot is a roadside land and situates by the side of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner has planted 5 shisham tree, 2 babul tree, one mahuwa and one neem tree over it. As the land was used as sahan land over which trees were planted as such it was noted as parati land in CH Form-2-A. The consolidation authorities determined its valuation at the rate of 20 paisa. As entire area of this plot was allotted in the chak of the petitioner with the consent of his co-sharers as such he had no grievance against the determination of its valuation. Otherwise, it is land of commercial value and 20 paisa was very nominal valuation. Respondents-3 to 5 are influential persons. Exercising their political influence, they also got plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare) allotted in their chak-1807 in collusion with consolidation authorities and also got endorsement in this respect, in CH Form-2-A of plot 221/13. On coming to know about double allotment, the petitioner filed an objection for deleting double allotment of plot 221/13 from the chak of respondents-3 to 5. Allotment of plot 221/13 (area 0.111 hectare), which is roadside original holding of the petitioner and situate in front of his house, in the chak of respondents-3 to 5, is causing grave injustice to the petitioner. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. Double allotment of plot 221/13 in chak of respondents-3 to 5 is liable to be deleted. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. Double allotment of plot 221/13 in chak of respondents-3 to 5 is liable to be deleted. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. By order dated 20.3.2015, the petitioner was asked to clarify as to whether plots 211/4, 211/7 and 214, which have now been allotted in the chak of the petitioner were also roadside land? The petitioner has filed a Supplementary Affidavit, annexing copy of chak map as corrected by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, from Which is it is clear that these plots situate on same road. However, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that road at plot 221/13 was pitch road on the spot but road at plot 211 was not pitch road. However this does not cause any material difference. 8. Out of total area of 0.111 hectare of plot 221/13, an area of 0.034 hectare belonged to the petitioner and remaining area of 0.077 hectare belonged to Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya, who were not family members of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya gave any consent for allotment of their land to the petitioner. Although after determination of valuation, no tenure holder has any right to give consent for allotment of his original holding in the chak of other person. From inspection report dated 26.3.2014, it is also proved that respondents-3 to 6 have also their charan and hut on a part of plot 221/13, which situates in front of their house. Thus their case, that although plot 221/13 was allotted to various persons by Gaon Sabha but from before its allotment, it was used by them as their sahan land, has been believed by consolidation authorities. They have opening of their house toward the land in dispute while house of the petitioner situates on roadside. In case, this plot is allotted to the petitioner, then access of respondents-3 to 5 to the road will be obstructed. 9. So far as the arguments that the land of plot 221/13 is a land of commercial value is concerned, had this plot was land of commercial value, then Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya, who together had an area of 0.077 hectare in his share would not have left it. 9. So far as the arguments that the land of plot 221/13 is a land of commercial value is concerned, had this plot was land of commercial value, then Hari Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Ramagya, who together had an area of 0.077 hectare in his share would not have left it. The ground that as this plot was allotted in the chak of the petitioner, as such he had no grievance against its valuation, was not available to them. The other co-sharers have not challenged its valuation, which shows that due to land being parati on the spot and in occupation of respondents-3 to 5, they thought it proper to leave this plot after taking its valuation. In any case, the chak, which has been now allotted to the petitioner situates on same road after three plots. Thus there is no material injustice. So far as claim of trees are concerned, at the time of partal, no tree was found nor it were noted in CH Form-2-A. The petitioner did not raise any objection. If some trees have been planted during consolidation, without prior permission, then at the most, the petitioner may cut these tree. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, the petitioner may be permitted to cut his trees within a period of four month.