JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pundir for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.9.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The petitioner inherited chak of Smt. Sazma wife of Matloob, who was his mother. Smt. Sazma was allotted chak no. 861 and Matloob, her husband was allotted chak no. 465. Plot Nos. 643, 749, 750,, 756, 759 and 886 were the original holding of Smt. Sazma. From the stage of ACO she was allotted single chak on plot no. 749 etc. Similarly her husband Matloob was allotted two chaks, first chak was allotted on plot no. 200 and second chak was allotted on plot no. 752 etc. It is alleged by the petitioner that chak of Sazma was adjacent to second chak of her husband Matloob on plot no. 752 etc. Mohd. Arif, Tahmil and Tarmin, respondents - 2 to 4 are real brothers and have share in their original holding. Plot nos. 17 , 28, 749, 750 and 756 were their original holding. According to their share Mohd. Arif was having total area of 0.4962 hectare of his original holding. Tahmil was having total area of 0.1813 hectare of his original holding and Tarmin was having total area of 0.1813 hectare of their original holding. From the stage of ACO, Mohd. Arif was allotted single chak on plot no. 201 etc, Tahmil was allotted single chak on plot no. 743 etc. and Tarmin was also allotted single chak on plot no. 743 etc. Smt. Sazma, mother of the petitioner filed an objection against the proposed chak before the CO. CO allowed the objection by the order dated 30.4.2014 and her chak on plot no. 746 was slightly modified. Tahmil and Mohd. Arif filed an appeal before SOC. The appeals were heard along with other chak appeals of the village. SOC by order dated 29.11.2014 allowed their appeals and allotted chak to Mohd. Arif on plot nos. 18, 19, 747, 753 and Tahmil on plot no. 751 and 753 and Tarmin on plot no. 751 , 752 and 753. Mohd. Arif, Tahmil and Tarmin filed their chak revisions before DDC. SOC by order dated 29.11.2014 allowed their appeals and allotted chak to Mohd. Arif on plot nos. 18, 19, 747, 753 and Tahmil on plot no. 751 and 753 and Tarmin on plot no. 751 , 752 and 753. Mohd. Arif, Tahmil and Tarmin filed their chak revisions before DDC. These revisions were consolidated and heard by DDC, who by the impugned order allowed their revisions in which chak of the petitioner on plot nos. 202, 203, 743, 747, 749 and 750 has been disturbed and by taking some of its area, he was allotted chak on plot no. 887. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that chak of Smt. Sazma was allotted adjoining to the chak of her husband Matloob on plot no. 750 etc. which was their original holding but DDC has illegally taken a part of area of the original holding of the petitioner and allotted it on plot no. 887 etc which is away about one km. from the existing chak of the petitioner. The petitioner was having facility of irrigation at the chak of plot no. 750 etc. but her chak has been illegally disturbed by DDC. DDC has illegally overlooked to the fact that by his order the area of the chak of Tahmil and Tarmin has been enhanced more that 25% of their original holding. The order of DDC is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. The writ petition has been filed challenging the chak allotment proceeding as such it is necessary for the petitioner to satisfy that by the impugned order material prejudice has been caused to him. A perusal of CH Form 23 of the mother of the petitioner and his father Matloob shows that plot no. 887 etc. were their original holding where a part of the chak of the petitioner was allotted by the order of DDC. From the stage of ACO, the mother of the petitioner was allotted a single chak on plot no. 749 etc. of an area of 1.0381 hectare and her chak was slightly modified by CO but it remained at the same place. Similarly, it was again slightly modified by SOC but it remained at the same place. From the stage of ACO, the mother of the petitioner was allotted a single chak on plot no. 749 etc. of an area of 1.0381 hectare and her chak was slightly modified by CO but it remained at the same place. Similarly, it was again slightly modified by SOC but it remained at the same place. The grievances of the respondents before DDC were that they were co-sharer in plot no. 749 etc. but their chaks have been allotted at different place. DDC has accepted their demand and allotted chak to them on plot no. 749 etc. Thus they were allotted chak on their original holding while the mother of the petitioner was allotted chak on her original holding as well as on the original holding of her husband. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that plot no. 887 etc were allotted in the chak of Km. Anisa and Smt. Warisa and they had no grievance against allotment of these plots in their chaks. In the revisions filed by the respondents - 2 to 4 their chaks were also disturbed. 8. So far as Km. Anisa and Smt. Warisa are concerned, they had not challenged the order of DDC as such the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise their grievance before this Court. A perusal of CH Form 2 A shows that the petitioner has no source of irrigation on plot no. 200 rather the source of irrigation belongs to Mohd. Junail. Thus Smt. Sazma and Matloob was not having their private source of irrigation on plot no. 200 and 749 etc. DDC by taking a part of the area from the chak of the petitioner allotted it in the chak of respondents - 2 and 3 and its valuation has been allotted to the petitioner on his original holding on plot no. 887. The chak as allotted to the petitioner on plot no. 887 is to the extent of area originally held by the petitioner and his father Matloob. Thus allotment of original holding of the petitioner does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner is still withholding the area of his chak on plot no. 750 etc to the extent of his original holding. Thus no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 9. Thus allotment of original holding of the petitioner does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner is still withholding the area of his chak on plot no. 750 etc to the extent of his original holding. Thus no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 9. So far as enhancement of area of chak to respondents - 3 and 4 is concerned, due to which the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved. Respondents - 3 and 4 were allotted chak on their original holding. In such circumstances, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.