JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi for the petitioners and Sri S. K. Tyagi for the caveator. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.6.2016 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 23.1.2015 passed in the chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot no. 194 area 0.519 hectare. Tejpal now represented by respondent-4 was co-sharer in plot no. 194 of ¼ share. So far as petitioners are concerned, the petitioners have no share in plot no. 194. Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed chak to the petitioners giving some area of plot no. 194. So far as Sharan Pal and Chet Ram is concerned, from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, they were proposed chak on plot no. 351. Although plot no. 351 was their original holding but they filed a time barred objection claiming plot no. 194. The reason for allotment of chak on plot no. 194 has been given by them that this plot was the largest part of their original holding and they had their private source of irrigation as well as family deity in it. Therefore they were entitled for allotment of chak on plot no. 194. The objection of the respondents was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.5.2013 on the ground that chak objections of the village has been decided from his stage as such he has no jurisdiction to change the chak. Sharan Pal filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. One Deepak Kumar also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 23.1.2015 found that although plot no. 194 was the largest part of original holding of Sharan Pal but he has not been allotted chak on it. It has further been found that Sharan Pal has his private source of irrigation at this place and due to not allotting chak on plot no. 194, he has been deprived of his private source of irrigation. On this finding, the appeals were allowed and Sharan Pal was allotted chak giving some area of plot no. 194. The order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by the petitioners in three revisions. 194, he has been deprived of his private source of irrigation. On this finding, the appeals were allowed and Sharan Pal was allotted chak giving some area of plot no. 194. The order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by the petitioners in three revisions. All the revisions were consolidated and decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 20.6.2016. The Deputy Director of Consolidation obtained a report from Assistant Consolidation Officer for ascertaining the claim of Sharan Pal regarding existence of his private source of irrigation as well as family deity in plot no. 194. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has submitted a report dated 3.2.2015 in which he has mentioned that in plot no. 194, there was no private source of irrigation rather a boring was existing on the demarcation line of plot no. 330/2 and there was no family deity in plot no. 194. Thereafter the revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 2.3.2015 allowed the revisions. Thereafter a recall application was filed by the contesting respondents which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.5.2015. Thereafter Sharan Pal and others filed Writ B No. 29028 of 2015 before this Court. This Court by order dated 4.9.2015 allowed the writ petition on the ground that Sharan Pal and others claimed their chak on plot no. 194 on the ground that it was their largest original holding. Thus according to the provisions of Section 90 (1) (e and f) they were entitled for allotment of chak in it but the claim has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation from this point of view and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 20.6.2016 dismissed the revisions. Hence this petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that claim of Sharan Pal was based upon the fact that he has his private source of irrigation in plot no. 194 as well as there was family deity in it. In the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.2.2015 neither private source of irrigation nor family deity was found in plot no. 194. Thus the basis of claim for allotment of chak on plot no. 194 of the respondents was found to be false. 194 as well as there was family deity in it. In the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.2.2015 neither private source of irrigation nor family deity was found in plot no. 194. Thus the basis of claim for allotment of chak on plot no. 194 of the respondents was found to be false. In such circumstances, the revision has been illegally dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submits that the petitioners were proposed chak on plot no. 194 from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. After confirmation of chak in the village they were delivered possession over it as such they were cultivating the land since 2013 and now they have sown crop of sugarcane over it. Apart from it, plot no. 194 was uneven land and the petitioners had been invested an amount of Rs. 30 to 40 thousand toward levelling of the land. But without considering the investment made by the petitioners , their chak on plot no. 194 has been disturbed. He further submits that petitioners have not been allotted chak on their original holding rather by the impugned order chak of the petitioners has become uran chak which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was illegal but revision filed by the petitioners has been illegally dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 6. A perusal of the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer shows that he found that there was a boring existing on plot no. 330/2. So far as the ownership of boring is concerned, the petitioners are not claiming that they are owner of this boring rather Sharan Pal was claiming himself to be owner of this boring and its existence on the demarcation line will not deprive his claim. Thus this was a material fact that plot no. 194 was largest part of original holding of Sharan Pal where he has his private source of irrigation and he was allotted chak on this plot by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. 7. So far as the claim of the petitioners that they had spent Rs. 30 to 40 thousand toward levelling of plot no. 7. So far as the claim of the petitioners that they had spent Rs. 30 to 40 thousand toward levelling of plot no. 194 is concerned, no material has been placed before this Court to show that on the date of confirmation as well as delivery of possession or prior to 2012 plot no. 194 was uneven land. Otherwise also plot no. 194 was valued at the rate of 80 paise . Thus according to the valuation it cannot be said that plot no. 194 was uneven land. Thus it cannot be a ground to allow the writ petition. 8. So far as the crop of sugarcane sown by the petitioners is concerned, it is for consideration at the time of delivery of possession and on its basis legality of the order could not be examined. 9. So far as claim of the petitioners that their chak was not on their original holding is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that original holding of the petitioners has been allotted in the chak of their co-sharer who were not impleaded as party in the revision. Therefore claim of the petitioners cannot be satisfied. The reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality. 10. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.