JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri B.R. Sharma for respondent no. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is heard finally. 2. The proceedings arise out of objections filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The objection was primarily on the ground that the chak of the petitioner over gata no. 48 should be abolished and be merged with the chak over gata no. 154/2. The reason for making such a prayer was that the land of gata no. 48 was of a higher valuation (90 paise), while that of gata no. 154 was 50 paise. The case of the petitioner is that he is a small tenure holder and thus, in case he is allotted a chak over gata no. 154, the area of his holding will get enlarged. The objection filed by the petitioner along with large number of other objections filed by various other tenure holders of the village came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer by a common order dated 26.12.2012. The order of the Consolidation Officer does not discuss the objections filed by the petitioner nor by any other tenure holders but in the operative part, it is stated that all the objections shall stand allowed. Accordingly, the amendment chart has been prepared. However, the amendment chart that has been prepared does not indicate any alteration in the chaks proposed in favour of the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, therefore, felt aggrieved by the fact that the amendment chart does not reflect that the objection filed by the petitioner had been allowed. In the appeal, the petitioner who had ¼ share in the joint holding did not implead his brother Basant, who was a co-sharer. He only impleaded the fourth respondent, who is his cousin and the other co-sharer having half share in the joint holding. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent have been allotted chaks according to the valuation of their respective shares. A specific finding has been recorded that the first chak of the petitioner over gata no. 48 has the valuation of 12.929 paisa whereas the second chak over gata no. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent have been allotted chaks according to the valuation of their respective shares. A specific finding has been recorded that the first chak of the petitioner over gata no. 48 has the valuation of 12.929 paisa whereas the second chak over gata no. 68/1 has the valuation of 7.38 paisa. The petitioner carried the matter in revision, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 2nd July, 2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection filed by the petitioner having been allowed by the Consolidation Officer, the amendment chart was not prepared accordingly, and consequently, the appeal ought to have been allowed. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has wrongly entered into the issue whether there should have been alteration in the chaks allotted to the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer inasmuch as, the objections filed by the petitioner stood already allowed by the Consolidation Officer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 contended that there was no discussion in relation to the objections filed by the petitioner in the order of the Consolidation Officer. The only alteration which had been directed by the Consolidation Officer is confined to those chaks which are reflected in the amendment chart prepared at the stage of Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that in case there was any error in the chart prepared by the Consolidation Officer, the remedy of the petitioner was to initiate proceedings under Section 42-A of the Act. According to him, the appeal filed by the petitioner was a misconceived one. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The order of the Consolidation Officer disposes of the objections filed by large number of tenure holders of the village. It only mentions about the objections filed by the respective tenure holders, but there is no discussion as to why the objections are being allowed. The amendment chart prepared by the Consolidation Officer does not reflect any change in the allotment of the chaks made to the petitioner at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 7. It only mentions about the objections filed by the respective tenure holders, but there is no discussion as to why the objections are being allowed. The amendment chart prepared by the Consolidation Officer does not reflect any change in the allotment of the chaks made to the petitioner at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 7. In case the chart prepared by the Consolidation Officer was not reflecting the correct state of affairs, the remedy of the petitioner was to seek correction in the chart by making application before the same authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner was not the proper remedy. 8. Since, the Consolidation Officer, while passing the order, has not recorded any finding as to why the objection filed by the petitioner is being allowed and the amendment chart does not reflect that the objection filed by the petitioner stood allowed and in such circumstances, in the appeal filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the said authority rightly proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue on merits. 9. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the appeal and the revision, have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner, the fourth respondent and Basant were the joint tenure holders. The petitioner along with his brother Basant had half share, whereas the other half belonged to the fourth respondent. All the co-sharers have been allotted plots on their original holding. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he should have been given a chak over gata no. 154/2 having a valuation of 50 paisa, so that he gets a chak with a bigger area, the Revisional Authority has held that while on one hand, the petitioner has been given land over gata no. 48 having valuation of 90 paisa, at the same time, he has also been given land of gata no. 68/1 having valuation of 70 paisa; as such, the petitioner has been given land of lesser valuation as well as higher valuation. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to him. 10. Apart from it, a perusal of the entries in CH Form 23 relating to the brother of the petitioner reveals that his brother has been given the first chak over land having valuation of 40 paisa and the second chak over the land having valuation of 70 paisa. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to him. 10. Apart from it, a perusal of the entries in CH Form 23 relating to the brother of the petitioner reveals that his brother has been given the first chak over land having valuation of 40 paisa and the second chak over the land having valuation of 70 paisa. The petitioner has not arrayed his brother Basant as a party to the appeal to whom most of the land of lesser valuation has been allotted. He only wants to disturb the chak of the fourth respondent, who had a major share in the joint holding. In such circumstances, the contention of the fourth respondent that the petitioner has deliberately left out his brother from being made a party to the present proceedings, appears to have force. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that substantial justice has been done while carving out chaks in favour of the parties. 11. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.