JUDGMENT : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. The present writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and is against the order dated 09.02.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in revision. 2. During the consolidation proceedings in Village Mukimpur/Mukundpur, District Haridwar, the Consolidation Officer allotted "chaks" to different tenure holders, including the petitioner. The "chak" which was allotted to the petitioner was "Chak No. 93", and he had no objection to the same. Khasra Nos. 514, 525, 524 and 515 were allotted in his "chak". Thereafter, the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Haridwar against Bundu and Zareef, in which certain amendments were made by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 30.11.2002 in the "chaks" and different "chaks" were allotted to the petitioner elsewhere i.e. elsewhere to his original holdings, though the petitioner did not make any objection to the same admittedly. Thereafter, a revision was filed by respondent no. 4 against the order dated 30.11.2002 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, which was allowed vide order dated 09.02.2004 by the revisional authority inasmuch as certain changes were made in the order of the Consolidation Officer and the "chaks" which were allotted to the petitioner, according to him, has been reduced. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. It is an extremely old matter pertaining to the year 2004. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in the matter. 4. The order dated 09.02.2004 passed by the revisional authority clearly states that respondent nos. 4 and 5 who were allotted "hawai chaks" want that their "chaks" be consolidated in their original holdings, which is natural and by doing so, the revisional authority also came to the conclusion that no adverse effect falls upon any other tenure holders and he has therefore passed the impugned order. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, it has been stated that the petitioner never raised any objection till the revisional stage and he was happy even when his "chaks", were allotted to another place, other than his original holdings. 6. By the present allotments of "chaks", the value of the petitioner's land has been reduced. In case, the area has been reduced, it is extremely minor and is permissible under the law. 6. By the present allotments of "chaks", the value of the petitioner's land has been reduced. In case, the area has been reduced, it is extremely minor and is permissible under the law. The fact is that the total value of the land has not been reduced. 7. Consolidation proceedings have a purpose. The purpose is that the agricultural land of tenure holders which is scattered at different places in revenue village or even in different villages is consolidated at one place. A pure mathematical calculation and consolidation to the satisfaction of each and every tenure holder is not possible. What is most important is that by the allotment of "chaks", in the consolidation proceedings, the total value of the land of the tenure holder should not be reduced. 8. In the present case, the total value of the land or the worth of the land has not been reduced. Further respondent no. 4 in its counter affidavit in paragraph no. 17 has stated that the possession has already been transferred/exchanged on 12.03.2004 in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2004 passed by respondent no. 1. 9. The possession on the new "chaks" has already been taken and there is no specific denial on this aspect by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. 10. It is an extremely old matter where the respective parties have taken their possession in the year 2004, and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to disturb them on the minor objection of the petitioner. 11. The writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.