JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri S.P. Singh learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for respondent no. 11. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation Chandauli in appeal no. 68-299 (Satya Narayan v. Raghav) as well as the order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chandauli in revision no. 16/14 of 2013-14. 3. The petitioner filed objections before the Consolidation Officer which was decided by order dated 23.5.2013. The position of the chak of the petitioner over gata no. 106 was altered. The second set of objection was filed by the third respondent for carving out a chak in his favour over gata no. 106. Respondent no. 3 is the real brother of the petitioner and both petitioner and the third respondent had 1/7 share in gata no. 106. The objection filed by the third respondent came to be rejected by order passed by Consolidation Officer on the same date. Aggrieved by the orders passed on 23.5.2013, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 filed two separate appeals, apart from other appeals filed by the other tenure holders. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner prayed that in lieu of his share in the holding of his mother Sarswati Devi chakdar no. 685, he be given a chak over gata no. 106, by merging with his existing chak over it. On the other hand, the third respondent in the appeal filed by him contended that he is entitled to a chak over gata no. 106 according to his share. 4. The appellate authority accepted the claim of the third respondent for carving out a chak in his favour in accordance with his share over gata no. 106. The appellate authority while granting such relief has also noted the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent that his remaining five brothers had agreed to surrender the land of their share over gata no. 106 in favour of the third respondent. In respect of the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate court found that the petitioner had 1/7 share in gata no. 106 in favour of the third respondent. In respect of the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate court found that the petitioner had 1/7 share in gata no. 106 (area 0.202 hectare) but was given a chak measuring 0.133 hectare, which was much more than his share. At the same time, since his abadi was situated near gata no. 106, so he was found entitled to a chak over that gata, though its area was reduced to 0.020 hectare. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23 August, 2016. 5. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, it has been wrongly noted that the other brothers have given consent in favour of the third respondent. It is urged that there is no such material on record. He further pointed out that in the appeal filed by the third respondent, the other brothers were not impleaded, as such they were not before the appellate authority to give their consent. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent produced before this Court the certified copy of the application filed by the other brothers before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation giving their consent for allotment of a chak in favour of the third respondent by surrendering their claim over gata no. 106. The application is supported by the affidavit of Jang Bahadur, one of the brother of the parties. In such view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, a perverse finding has been recorded that the other brothers have given consent in favour of the third respondent. 7. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the rejection of the objection filed by the third respondent by order dated 23.5.2013, the third respondent did not file any appeal against the said order. It is urged that the appeal was directed against the order dated 23.5.2013 passed on the objections filed by the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent by placing reliance on the memo of appeal no. It is urged that the appeal was directed against the order dated 23.5.2013 passed on the objections filed by the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent by placing reliance on the memo of appeal no. 299 of 2013 filed by the third respondent tried to impress upon the Court that challenge in the appeal was in fact directed against the order rejecting the objections filed by the third respondent. 9. This Court has perused the memo of appeal and it appears therefrom that the specific demand in the memo of appeal by the third respondent was for carving out a chak over gata no. 106/2. The order impugned in the memo of appeal is dated 23.5.2013 passed on the objections filed by the third respondent under Section 20 of the Act. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no appeal was filed by the third respondent against the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objections filed by the third respondent also cannot be accepted. 10. It is not disputed before this Court that the total area of the gata no. 106/2 is 0.202 hectares. The petitioner has 1/7 share, though he claims that there was a family settlement under which he was occupying substantial part of the said gata. The appellate authority has, by impugned order, allotted 0.020 hectare to the petitioner having regard to his 1/7 share and its proximity to his abadi. The alleged family settlement, which is a private arrangement, and was denied by the other brothers, was not binding upon the consolidation authorities. Having regard to the fact that the other brothers of the parties have given consent in favour of the third respondent, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority and which has been affirmed in revision. Substantial justice has been done between the parties. Impugned orders do not require any interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.