JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Khurshed Alam for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Pandey for the contesing respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.7.2004 and 1.4.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding in UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is alleged by the petitioner that he has purchased plot no 503, 504, 505, 507 from Ahmadullah Khan and Nabiullah Khan sons of Valiullah Khan through sale deed dated 7.10.1992. During consolidation name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. By the impugned order dated 5.7.2004 on the basis of sale deed dated 11.9.2003 1/2 share of Ahmadullah Khan and Nabiullah Khan were directed to be recorded in the name of transferee. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter took plot no.502 and 503 from the chak of Ahmadullah Khan and Nabiullah Khan (Chak No. 18) and allotted it in the chak of Aftab Ali and Balak Ram. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that without impleading the petitioner as party, the chak of the petitioner has been disturbed. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 1.4.2016 dismissed the recall application as well as delay condonation application. Hence this petition has been filed. In paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has stated that he has constructed a school in plot no. 504, 505, 506, 507 and 503 is adjacent holding of the petitioner. Through sale deed dated 7.10.1992, 1/18 share in plot no. 503 area 1 acre was transferred to the petitioner. Thus so far as plot no. 503 is concerned, only a small area of about 6.5 decimal has been transferred to the petitioner. In lieu of plot no. 503 Ahmadullah Khan and Nabiullah Khan were allotted chak on plot nos. 501 and 502 which are adjacent plots. Thus no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as his school, existing on plot nos. 504, 505, 506 and 507, is not affected by the impugned order. Even if a small area of 6.5 decimal of plot no. 503 is affected but adjoining plots were allotted. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.