JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. 3. By this order, a revision filed by the respondents has been allowed, modifying the chak of the petitioners, hence this writ petition. 4. The dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to plot no. 19 of Village Ramna Pargana Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. 5. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents filed an objection under Section 20, praying that they be allotted chaks in one sector and further that the chaks be adjusted in such a way that they, abut the road. 6. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 11.05.1999, rejected the objection holding that the objectors had been allotted chaks on their original holdings and the chaks in different sectors could not be adjusted in one sector. 7. It is submitted that the respondents thereafter filed a second objection, however, the same was rejected on the objection of the petitioners. 8. The respondents thereafter filed a belated appeal. In the appeal, several futile attempts were made to obtain an order by means of compromise. 9. Ultimately, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, rejecting the appeal after making a spot inspection. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, allowed the revision partly granting relief to the respondents, while disturbing the chak of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition. 11. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is cryptic. It considers only the allotment made in favour of chak holder nos. 943 and 778. The case of the other chak holders has not been referred to, while passing the impugned order. 12. Elaborating further, he submits that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, are holders of chak no. 56-A, the petitioner no. 4, is holder of chak no. 110, the petitioner no. 5, is holder of chak no. 440, the petitioner no. 3, is holder of chak no. 777, while petitioner no. 6 is holder of chak no. 942. There is absolutely no whisper in the impugned order as regards the chak of the aforesaid petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.? 13. 110, the petitioner no. 5, is holder of chak no. 440, the petitioner no. 3, is holder of chak no. 777, while petitioner no. 6 is holder of chak no. 942. There is absolutely no whisper in the impugned order as regards the chak of the aforesaid petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.? 13. It is therefore, the case of the petitioners that their chaks have been distributed without any discussion as to the chak proposed to them. 14. Sri V.K. Singh, next submitted that a sketch map is appended to the impugned order. This sketch map is not to scale nor it indicates the plot numbers. It is also not clear from this map as to the extent of enhancement in the area of the respondents chak. 15. His next submission is that broadly speaking the share of the parties are correctly mentioned in the impugned order. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation, has not taken into consideration the fact that one of the co-owners of the disputed plot, namely Manjhari, had ?th share therein. Upon the death of Manjhari, the petitioners have inherited his ?th share and, therefore, their share in the disputed plot no. 19 has increased marginally as compared what has been mentioned in the impugned order. 16. He has further submitted that respondent no. 6, has been allotted a land in his chak, more than one kilometre away from where it was previously proposed. This area is also not indicated in the sketch map appended to the impugned order. He also submits that petitioner no. 5, has been allotted bachat land in his chak, at a spot where no land, is actually available. He has also placed reliance upon paragraph 28 of the writ petition as also paragraphs 13 to 18 of the supplementary affidavit to highlight the injury suffered by the petitioners on account of the impugned order. He lastly submits that there is only a bald denial of the averments contained in the aforesaid paragraphs 13 to 18 of the supplementary affidavit, which tant-amounts to an admission of these averments.? 17. Sri Avdesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, has submitted that the said respondents have ?th share in the land in dispute. The aforesaid respondents are chak holder no. 1099.? 18. 17. Sri Avdesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, has submitted that the said respondents have ?th share in the land in dispute. The aforesaid respondents are chak holder no. 1099.? 18. Referring to the sketch map appended to the impugned order, he submits that respondents have not been allotted a chak adjacent to the Abadi. Their chaks stand at a distance from the Abadi and is not appurtenant thereto as is the case of the chak of the petitioners. He next submits that the total area of the plot in dispute abutting the road in 1986 links and the respondents admittedly have ?th share therein. 19. Although, their revision has been allowed in part, they have only been allotted 270 links abutting the road side, although, accordingly to their share in the disputed plot, they were entitled to 331 links abutting the road side. His next submission is that chak holder nos. 544, 440, 942, 110 and 56-A, have a combined share of ?th share in the disputed plot. Yet, they have been allotted 440 links abutting the road, which is more than double to their legal entitlement. 20. He therefore, submits that even though, the revision of the respondents has been allowed, they are still at a disadvantage viz-a-viz, the petitioners who have been allotted land abutting the road side besides having chaks abutting their Abadi. 21. He next contends that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the petitioners has been allotted land more than a kilometre away, is without substance and highly misleading because plot no. 19 is a very large plot about 12 hectares in area. All the adjustments that have been made by the impugned order are confined to this very large plot and by all the modifications made, all the parties have been adjusted on plot no. 19, alone. 22. Referring to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, he has stated that at no stage, it was the case of the petitioners that they had been allotted land abutting the road, lesser than what was their share therein. 23. He next submits that since the plot in question namely plot no. 19, is a huge plot. A part of its area falls in sector 11, while the remaining part is in sector 18. 23. He next submits that since the plot in question namely plot no. 19, is a huge plot. A part of its area falls in sector 11, while the remaining part is in sector 18. On account of this fact also, the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners could not be allotted a chak in a single sector was patently illegal, besides being contrary to the record. 24. Referring to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit as also its reply contains in paragraph 18 of the rejoinder affidavit, he submits that by the impugned order an equatable distribution has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioners are in no way aggrieved or put in a disadvantageous position. If some has been put in a disadvantageous position by the impugned order, it is the respondents alone, whose revision has been only partly, allowed. 25. Sri A.K. Singh has lastly submitted that the dispute as regards entitlement to the share of Manjhari, since deceased is still pending at the appellate stage. It is no doubt true that the Consolidation Officer has held the petitioners to be entitled to the share of Manjhari, but at the appellate stage, the claim of the respondents is that they are also entitled to a share therein. 26. He therefore, contends that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding enhancement of their share in the disputed plot on account of inheritance of the share of Manjhari, the same is still sub-judice and, therefore, irrelevant.? 27. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 28. From a perusal of the correction table appended to the impugned order, I find that the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the entire adjustment has been made on plot no. 19 alone, is borne out by the record. 29. Besides learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that plot no. 19 is a very large plot extending from sector 11 to 18. 30. 19 alone, is borne out by the record. 29. Besides learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that plot no. 19 is a very large plot extending from sector 11 to 18. 30. Since it is not in dispute that the plot in question is a joint holding of the parties and by the adjustment/modifications made by the impugned order, the parties have merely been adjusted over different areas on this plot which is their original holding, this Court is constrained to hold that the order appears to be justified. 31. The chaks that have been proposed by the impugned order are all on the original holding and for this reason alone, the impugned order calls for no interference. 32. This Court is further inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that substantial justice has been done between the parties by the impugned order and for this reason also, it calls for no interference. 33. Accordingly and in view of the above, I do not consider it to a fit case for interference. 34. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will however, no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.