JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Lakshmana Singh for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of SOC dated 7.1.2013 and DDC dated 5.12.2015, passed in chak allotment proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. Initially, the petitioner had different khatas, therefore, two different chaks were allotted to her. First chak no. 210 was allotted on plot no. 450, which was her original holding and second chak no. 248 was allotted on plot no. 447, taking major portion of area of plot no. 444. The petitioner was satisfied with her proposed chak and did not file any objection against her allotment of chak. One Sri Krishna, who was original tenure holder of plot no. 444 filed an objection before the CO, which was decided by order dated 16.7.2012. Thereafter, he filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 131), which was allowed by order dated 7.1.2013, in which chak of the petitioner, as allotted by ACO on plot no. 444, has been disturbed and she has been allotted chak on plot nos. 435, 445, 446 and 447. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of SOC, filed a revision, which was dismissed by DDC by order dated 5.12.2015. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The argument of counsel for the petitioner is that SOC has not given any opportunity of hearing and disturbed her chak by the order dated 7.1.2013. DDC has allegedly dismissed the revision, although the revision ought to have been allowed. He submits that plot no. 447 the largest original holding of the petitioner, in which, she had 1/3 share, therefore, she was entitled chak on plot no. 447, but at present, the chak as allotted to her, is only on a small area of 0.068 hectare of plot no. 447 and remaining area of other plots were allotted. Therefore, material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. So far as giving opportunity of hearing is concerned, opportunity of hearing has been given by the DDC and he was satisfied with the allotment of chak as made to the petitioner. Therefore, material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. So far as giving opportunity of hearing is concerned, opportunity of hearing has been given by the DDC and he was satisfied with the allotment of chak as made to the petitioner. DDC found that the first chak of the petitioner was allotted on her original holding and she was satisfied with it and did not file any objection. So far as the second chak is concerned, it was allotted, taking major portion of plot no. 444, therefore, the original tenure holder of plot no. 444 filed an appeal. It is admitted that plot no. 444 is a roadside land, therefore, the appeal was rightly allowed and it cannot be said that SOC has committed any illegality in restoring the roadside land to the original tenure holder. 7. So far as the claim of the petitioner for allotment of chak on plot no. 447 is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has 1/3 share in it. Chak of the petitioner was allotted on the adjacent plot of plot no. 447, taking an area of 0.068 hectare on equal quality of land. Thus, no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the circumstances, in chak allotment proceeding, no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.