JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Rai for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.6.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") 3. The dispute at present, as raised by the petitioners, is for allotting chak on plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9, total area 0.23 acre of village Roopapur, pargana Kaswar Raja, tehsil Raja Talab, district Varanasi. 4. After notification of the village under Section 20 of the Act, the petitioners filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act, claiming allotment of chak on plot no.581 at least of the area 0.25 acre. Consolidation Officer decided the objection of the petitioners along with other chak objections of the village by order dated 29.11.2003 and required relief was granted to the petitioners. 5. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application before Consolidation Officer stating that the petitioners had filed the objection under Section 20 of the Act on 5.12.2003 but that objection was not traceable on which Record Keeper had submitted a report that record was not registered in Goswara Register. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 21 of the Act on 21.1.2004. In the appeal the petitioners had prayed that their chak be allotted on plot no.984/2 and their chak on plot no.975, 982 and 983 to the extent of 0.24 acre be deleted. In the meantime, the petitioners had also filed another appeal for deleting the valuation of plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9, total area 0.23 acre. Both the appeals were heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 19.3.2004 decided the appeals. He allowed the appeal of the petitioners by which allotment of chak was sought for on plot no.984 but the appeal claiming deletion of valuation of plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9 was dismissed on the ground that as there were other cosharers in these plots and they were allotted chaks on it as such at this stage its valuation could not be deleted. 6. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. In the revision, the petitioner again prayed for deletion of valuation of plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9, total area 0.23 acre. 6. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. In the revision, the petitioner again prayed for deletion of valuation of plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9, total area 0.23 acre. Revision of the petitioners was allowed by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.11.2007. Thereafter the respondents filed a recall application. The recall application was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 28.1.2011. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 20.4.2015. Thereafter the revision was heard afresh and Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 25.6.2016 dismissed the revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that initially objection of the petitioners under Section 20 of the Act was for allotment of chak on plot no.581 claiming his construction on it and that objection was allowed by Consolidation Officer. Thereafter the objection was filed under Section 9-B of the Act, which was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner did not challenge the chak of Surya Narain and others on plot no.628/5 etc. under Section 20 of the Act. It is only at the stage of revision, the demand was made for deleting its valuation. Therefore, chaks of Surya Narain and others would be adversely affected if valuation of these plots is deleted. On this finding the revision was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 8. A perusal of the chak objection of the petitioners as initially filed shows that he confined his demand for allotment of chak on plot no.581, which was allowed by Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.11.2003. Thereafter before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioners made demand for allotment of chak on plot no.984 claiming to be road side land that demand was also allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 19.3.2004. Now, the petitioners have set up a fresh demand for deleting valuation of plot nos. 628/5, 628/6 and 628/9. Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that there were other cosharers, who were allotted chak at this place as such deletion of valuation would cause prejudice to them. The revision of the petitioners has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the petitioners have been changing their demand at every stage, which cannot be permitted to be done. 9. The revision of the petitioners has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the petitioners have been changing their demand at every stage, which cannot be permitted to be done. 9. So far as the claim of these plots being road side land is concerned a perusal of the record shows that original holding of the petitioners and their cosharers on plot no.984 is also roadside land where the petitioners were given chak by order dated 19.3.2004 of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. At this place other cosharers of the petitioners were given chaks. The petitioners have not disclosed the entire facts, which justified the allotment of chaks to the petitioners deleting chak of other cosharers on plot no.628/5 etc. The petitioners have not stated that how many plots were on road side and what area on road side was allotted to them. 10. In the circumstance no relief can be be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.