JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Rajeshwar Singh, for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Singh, for respondent-10. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 08.09.2016, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Satya Narain (the petitioner) and his brother Hanuman (respondent- 16) are joint chak holder No.-109. They were proposed their first chak on plots 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 252, 253, 254, 257, 264, 265, 266 and 267 of total area 1.000 hectare, from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, adjoining to their house in southern side of this chak. A perusal of CH Form-23 of the petitioner shows area of this chak was much more than the area of their original holding in this vicinity. At this place, Dharam Raj Pandey (respondent-15) (chak-28) has his house in east, thereafter in his west, the petitioner has his house, thereafter in his west Ram Sumer (now represented by respondents-2 to 5) (chak-69) has his house and thereafter in his west Bhagauti Deen (now represented by respondents-7 to 10) (chak- 49) has his house and all of them were allotted chaks in north of their houses. Brij Raj (now represented by respondent-6) (chak-39) has his house in extreme west at this place. 4. From the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Brij Raj was allotted chak in north of chak of Ram Sumer. Due to allotment of chak to Brij Raj at this place, Ram Sumer filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act. Brij Raj also filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act. Consolidation Officer consolidated these objections along with other chak objections of the village and by order dated 26.04.1975, decided chak objections. Four appeals were filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 26.04.1975. Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated these appeals, heard together and decided order dated 06.06.1975. Ram Sumer filed a revision against aforesaid order and stated that his chak on plots 258 and 259 etc. were on his original holdings, where he has also his house and sahan land, due to which a part of plots 259 and 260 were left as chak out. Settlement Officer Consolidation without making spot inspection has illegally allotted chak to Brij Raj on his original holding and in front of his house. were on his original holdings, where he has also his house and sahan land, due to which a part of plots 259 and 260 were left as chak out. Settlement Officer Consolidation without making spot inspection has illegally allotted chak to Brij Raj on his original holding and in front of his house. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 31.12.1975, allowed the revision. By this order, chak of the petitioner was also affected and shifted towards east at the same place. 5. The petitioner filed a writ petition (registered as Writ Petition No. 623 of 1976) against aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court, by order dated 22.08.1983. This Court set aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.12.1975 and remanded the matter to him to decide the revision, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and examining their claims. After remand, heirs of Ram Sumer (respondents-2 to 5) and respondent-6 filed a written compromise before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 14.06.2002 and they agreed for allotment of chak to Ram Sumer on plots 257, 258, 261, 262, 263 and 264. The matter remained pending due to non-cooperation of the petitioner in hearing of the revision. In the meantime respondents-2 to 5 filed Writ B No. 14079 of 2014, which was disposed of by order dated 06.03.2014, directing Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of producing certified copy of the order before him. 6. Thereafter, Deputy Director of Consolidation obtained spot inspection report on 16.07.2014 and 07.09.2016. The petitioner did not file any objection to these reports. Various adjournments were granted to the petitioner but he did not cooperate with the hearing of the revision. On 03.09.2016, Deputy Director of Consolidation gave last opportunity to the petitioner to give his grievances in writing, in case previous order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.12.1975 is maintained, as other parties had agreed to follow that order again. But the petitioner failed to file any written objection. On 03.09.2016, Deputy Director of Consolidation gave last opportunity to the petitioner to give his grievances in writing, in case previous order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.12.1975 is maintained, as other parties had agreed to follow that order again. But the petitioner failed to file any written objection. Ultimately Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 08.09.2016 allowed two revisions (i.e. one filed by Ram Sumer and other filed by Lal Bahadur), due to which the chak of the petitioner was also disturbed inasmuch as by taking an area of 0.132 hectare from the western side of the chak of the petitioner and its valuation was allotted to him in eastern side. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent-1 has decided the revisions in very mechanical manner, without considering grievances of any of the parties, although this Court in remand order dated 22.08.1983, has specifically directed to consider grievances of the parties. By impugned order dated 08.09.2016, respondent-1 again adopted earlier order dated 31.12.1975, although that order was set aside by this Court. He allotted chak to Brij Raj (chak-39) in front of the door of the petitioner, although no one filed any objection against proposed chak of the petitioner and it was confirmed under Section 23 of the Act, in 1975 and after about 40 years, respondent-1 has illegally disturbed chak of the petitioner. Respondents-7 to 10 (chak-49) were given undue benefit as they had filed an application for transferring revision to other Court before District Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner was allotted his chak on chak road, which is running on spot for about 40 years and it will be very expensive for the petitioner to shift chak road in east. The order of respondent-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. The petitioner has filed copy of confirmed chak map of this place (on page 70 of writ petition). A perusal of confirmed chak map, shows that chak of the petitioner at this place was zigzag in western side in its middle. This portion was taken from the chak of the petitioner and his western portion was made in straight line by impugned order. From this change his frontage of house, which situates in south is not affected. A perusal of confirmed chak map, shows that chak of the petitioner at this place was zigzag in western side in its middle. This portion was taken from the chak of the petitioner and his western portion was made in straight line by impugned order. From this change his frontage of house, which situates in south is not affected. From amendment chart attached to order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 08.09.2016, shows that the petitioner was allotted an area of 0.077 hectare from chak road and 0.010 hectare from chak of Dharam Raj (chak- 28), which are in east of his chak and an area of 0.040 hectare from chak of Bhagauti Deen (chak-49) in was in north-west. 9. From spot inspection reports (Annexure-11), it is proved that at this place, Dharam Raj Pandey (respondent-15) (chak-28) has his house in east, thereafter in his west, the petitioner has his house, thereafter in his west Ram Sumer (now represented by respondents-2 to 5) (chak-69) has his house and thereafter in his west Bhagauti Deen (chak-49) has his house and all of them were allotted chaks in north of their houses. Brij Raj (chak-39) has his house in extreme west at this place. A perusal of amendment chart attached to order dated 08.09.2016, shows that Bhagauti Deen (chak-49) was given an area of 0.100 hectare from chak of Ram Sumer (chak-69) which was in west of chak of the petitioner. Allegations that chak of Bhagauti Deen was shifted in front of the door of the petitioner is not proved. In fact, an area of 0.092 hectare from the chak of the petitioner (chak-109) was allotted in chak of Ram Sumer (chak-69) and an area of 0.040 hectare was allotted in chak of Brij Raj (chak-39) which are lying in north of chak-69 and zigzag portion of the chak of the petitioner. Allegation that by impugned order, respondents were allotted chak on frontage of the door of the petitioner is not proved. Substantially chak of the petitioner remained at the same place and some western portion was shifted in east. 10. A perusal of spot inspection report dated 07.09.2016, shows that brick-paved chak road is lying in northern side of the chak of the parties and remained unaffected. So far as chak road in eastern side, which is allotted to the petitioner, is concerned, it is not brick-paved. 10. A perusal of spot inspection report dated 07.09.2016, shows that brick-paved chak road is lying in northern side of the chak of the parties and remained unaffected. So far as chak road in eastern side, which is allotted to the petitioner, is concerned, it is not brick-paved. It will not take much expenses in shifting in mechanical age. Thus no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. No interference is required by this Court. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, substantial justice has been done between the parties. The writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed.