JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 26.10.2015 granting permission for raising construction to respondent-3 in plot no.8 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. Respondent-3 filed an application for grant of permission for raising construction before Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In the application it has been stated by respondent-3 that he has purchased an area of 10.5 kadi of plot no.8 from Chandra Bhan, who is real brother of the petitioner, having 1/2 share in the land in dispute and on the basis of sale deed he has been given possession by the joint team constituted by Revenue Department as well as Consolidation Department in presence of Sub Divisional Officer on 4.12.2014 and was now require permission of raising construction over it. On the application of respondent-3 a report was called for. The Consolidator in his report dated 22.1.2015 has stated that possession of respondent-3 over part of the land has been found. Thereafter Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 26.10.2015 granted permission for raising construction. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 16.7.2016. Hence, this petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, total area of plot no.8 was 0.357 hectare, out of which 10.5 kadi was sold by Chandra Bhan in favour of respondent-3. Since respondent-3 was given possession over the land purchased by him in northern side of plot no.8, thus, southern side of the plot is still in possession of the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner has only 1/2 share in the said plot and there is nothing to show that after taking possession of 10.5 kadi of land, any material prejudice will be caused to him. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.