JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of the final chaks proposed to the petitioner within a time bound period. 2. Along with the writ petition, a letter of the Settlement Officer Consolidation addressed to the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 10.06.2015 has been annexed. In this letter, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has informed the Commissioner that delivery of possession cannot be affected on account of pendency of writ petition No.39252 of 2014, Deen Dayal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, wherein an interim order has been granted on 11.08.2014 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Moradabad. 3. In view of the averments contained in the writ petition and on the basis of submissions made by Sri Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition, this court summoned the record of Writ Petition No.39252 of 2014. 4. In this writ petition No. 39252 of 2014 counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. I have therefore proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties, in this writ petition and I am deciding the same finally which shall remove the hurdle in delivery of possession to the tenure holders. 5. The writ petition No.39252 of 2014 arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for the allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the order dated 11.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Moradabad and the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the respondent no.1, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad. 6. In so far as challenge to this appellate order is concerned, the same is totally uncalled for, inasmuch as the chak of the petitioner has not been modified by this order. 7. Even otherwise, this order was never challenged by the petitioner by means of revision. This challenge is wholly therefore unjustified. Since revision is alleged to have been preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order, the same has, therefore, become final and cannot be challenged by means of the writ petition. 8. 7. Even otherwise, this order was never challenged by the petitioner by means of revision. This challenge is wholly therefore unjustified. Since revision is alleged to have been preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order, the same has, therefore, become final and cannot be challenged by means of the writ petition. 8. The chak of the petitioner has again been modified by the revisional order at the instance of Smt. Kanti and therefore, it is only to been seen whether the revisional order is justified or not. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that plot no.1095 area 0.326, is the petitioners largest original holding containing his private source of irrigation. The petitioner is stated to have been deprived of his plot by the impugned order as an area of 0.100 of this plot has been excluded from his chak. 10. This order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the instance of Smt. Kanti, the respondent on the ground that she have been allotted three chaks, one of which was wholly Uran. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has abolished the Udan Chak and included its valuation in the chaks already proposed thereby reducing the number of chaks allotted to her to from three to two. In so far as, the reasoning given in the impugned revisional order is concerned, the same cannot be faulted with. The only thing that requires consideration, therefore, is as to whether the modification of the petitioner's chak in the process, is justified or not. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are, on the one hand, claiming greater area of plot no.1095 on the ground that it is their original holding and contains their private source of irrigation. It is true that an area of 0.100 Hectare of this plot has been excluded from his chak, yet it is equally true that the petitioners have executed a sale deed of about 200 sq. Meters of this plot on 13.07.2014. This fact is enough to justify the reduction in area of this plot from the petitioners chak. In case, this plot was so important for the petitioners, they should not have executed a sale deed of any area of this plot. Meters of this plot on 13.07.2014. This fact is enough to justify the reduction in area of this plot from the petitioners chak. In case, this plot was so important for the petitioners, they should not have executed a sale deed of any area of this plot. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner has not been put to any injury, much less substantial injury, on account of exclusion of some area of this plot, from their chaks. 12. Despite laboured arrangements, learned counsel for the petitioner's has not able to justify the sale of a portion of plot No.1095 when on the other hand they are claiming a greater area of this plot to be included in his chak. 13. I am therefore inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the demand of the petitioner is not justified and he has not been put to any injury by exclusion of some area of plot no.1095 from his chak. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has been totally deprived of plot no.1095 which contains his private source of irrigation. He has been allotted a chak on this plot which is inconsoance with the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act. 14. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned revisional order which has been passed for cogent reasons. 15. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 16. It is further, clarified that since writ petition No. 39252 of 2014 has been dismissed, there is no impeadiment in implementation of the impugned order on the spot. The tenure holders are liable to be delivered possession over the chaks as proposed by the order impugned in the writ petition. 17. The writ petition No. 59538 of 2015 is therefore disposed of with the direction to the Consolidation Authorities to implement the order dated 19.05.2014 on the spot, in case there is no other legal hurdle in such implementation. 18. Accordingly, writ petition No.39252 of 2014 is dismissed and writ petition No. 59538 of 2015 is disposed of as above. Ordered Accordingly.