JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Devi Prasad Mishra for the petitioner and Sri Om Narayan Pandey for the respondents. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 8.9.2014, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8.12.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.10.2015 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was proposed three chaks. First chak was proposed on his original holding of plot no. 99. Second chak was proposed on his original holding of plot no. 125 etc and third chak was proposed on his original holding of plot no. 154 etc. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act for deleting his first chak on plot no. 99 and allotting its valuation in his second chak on plot no. 125. The objection of the petitioner was decided along with other objection of the village and the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 8.9.2014 slightly modified his first and second chak at the same place. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The appeal was heard along with appeal of Dharmendra Singh. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 8.12.2014 modified the second chak of the petitioner. In this modification an area of 0.422 hectare of plot no. 160 was taken from his second chak and its valuation has been allotted on plot nos. 161, 162, 163, 164 and 168 etc. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 1.10.2015 dismissed the revision. Hence this petition has been filed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 6. So far as the claim of the petitioner for deleting his chak on plot no. 99 is concerned, plot no. 99 was the original holding of the petitioner in which he has ½ share. Total area of plot no. 99 was 1.368 hectare and it was valued at the rate of 100 paisa. The petitioner was allotted first chak of an area of 0.680 hectare. The chak is equal to the valuation of original holding of the petitioner at this place. 7. Total area of plot no. 99 was 1.368 hectare and it was valued at the rate of 100 paisa. The petitioner was allotted first chak of an area of 0.680 hectare. The chak is equal to the valuation of original holding of the petitioner at this place. 7. So far as second chak of the petitioner is concerned, plot no. 125 is the largest original holding of the petitioner and the petitioner was allotted second chak on plot no. 125, which is largest holding, taking some area of plot nos. 124, 160 and 161. By the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation an area of plot no. 160 was taken away from the second chak of the petitioner and its valuation was allotted to him on plot nos. 161, 162, 163, 164 and 168 which are adjoining plots. The chak remain at the same place. Some portion which has been taken and its valuation has been allotted on the other side at the same place. Plot no. 125 area 1.382 hectare which was in second chak of the petitioner remained at the same place. Thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in allotting the adjoining plots at the same place. 8. Although in the memorandum of appeal the petitioner has taken a ground that he has his own boring in plot no. 160 but a perusal of CH Form 2 A shows that at the time of partal, the petitioner was not having any boring on plot no. 160. The petitioner has not taken any further ground in this respect in the memorandum of revision although plot no. 160 was taken from the petitioner by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Thus this Court does not find any substance in this ground that the petitioner has any boring in plot no. 160. The chak carvation proceeding has been finalized and this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction does not find any illegality in the impugned orders. No material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 9. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.