JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Jaya Nath Patel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.8.2016 passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The petitioners were having original holding on plot no. 166 area 0.857 hectare and plot no.47/2, area 0.008 hectare. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer a single chak was proposed to the petitioners on plot no.47/2. Against the proposed chak of the petitioners an objection was filed by contesting respondents. Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.4.1999 allowed the objection and by taking an area of 0.085 hectare from the chak of the petitioners, they were allotted a second chak on plot no.102 etc. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 29.1.2000 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was consolidated along with other chak revisions of the village and Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 24.10.2000 allowed the revision of the petitioners. By this order chak of the petitioners remained at two places i.e. one on plot no.47/2 and other on plot no.102 etc. The petitioner or other persons who were affected by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.10.2000 did not challenge it. However, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was challenged by one Raj Nath by filing a recall application and thereafter he filed writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by this Court and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.10.2000 was set aside and matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties by order dated 1.8.2016 dismissed the revision of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. 5. So far as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.10.2000 is concerned, the petitioners were given two chaks- one on plot no.47/2 and other on plot no.102 etc. 6. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. 5. So far as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.10.2000 is concerned, the petitioners were given two chaks- one on plot no.47/2 and other on plot no.102 etc. 6. The demand of the petitioners for allotment of a single chak on plot no.47/2 is not justified inasmuch as original holding of petitioner on plot no.47/2 was only 0.008 hectare and in lieu of this area the petitioners were proposed chak of an area 0.279 hectare on plot no.47/2. Thus, injustice has been done to other co-sharers. Therefore, Consolidation Officer has rightly allotted two chaks to the petitioner. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.