JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh learned counsel for respondent No.4/Land Management Committee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.3 are real brother. Petitioner is chak holder No.189 and respondent no.3 is chak holder No.872. Plot No.617 etc. are the original plot of petitioner and respondent No.3 which are mentioned in C.H. Form 23 (Part-1) as annexed along with writ petition. Petitioner was proposed three chak by consolidation officer first chak on plot No.615, Second chak on plot No.439 M etc and third chak on plot No.545M etc. Respondent No.3 was also proposed three chak, first chak om plot No.422 etc. Second Chak on plot NO.385 etc and third chak on plot No700 etc. Petitioner filed chak objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act for allotment of chak on plot No.385 in place of his second chak allotted on plot No.439 etc. The other objection were also filed by the chak holders and all the chak objection were heard together and decided vide order dated 30.11.2021 by which petitioner's claim for allotment on plot No.385 was rejected. Appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2022. Petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was heard along with other revisions and the revision filed by petitioner was partly allowed vide order dated 22.08.2022 allotting chak on plot No.385 behind the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order of Consolidation authorities through Writ-B No.2545 of 2022 before this Court which was heard and allowed vide order dated 11.10.2023 remitting the matter before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh within period of three months. In pursuance of the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Court Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the revision vide order dated 29.10.2024 and maintained the earlier order dated 22.08.2022. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (annexure No.10 to the writ petiton)." 3. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (annexure No.10 to the writ petiton)." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been deprived from road side original plot according to his share as such impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that earlier revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside by this Court and matter was sent back to decide the revision afresh but the Deputy director of Consolidation has again affirm his earlier order which is illegal exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made the spot inspection while passing the impugned order, as such the impugned order is illegal. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has allotted chak to the petitioner on the plot which is not fit for cultivation and the order has been maintained in appeal and revision. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to exchange his chak from the chak of the respondent No.3. He submitted that provision contained under Section-19 of U.P.C.H. Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that petitioner and respondent no.3 are real brother and both have been adjusted on their original plot according to the provisions contained under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that petitioner has been allotted chak on plot No.385 area 0.796 hectare as such no further interference is required in the matter. He further submitted that petitioner and respondent No.3 have been rightly adjusted on their original plots of good and medium quality according to their share as far as possible as such no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that writ petition arises out of allotment of chak proceeding. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner and contesting respondent No.3 are real brother having equal share in the plots. 7. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that writ petition arises out of allotment of chak proceeding. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner and contesting respondent No.3 are real brother having equal share in the plots. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of relevant portion of impugned revisional order dated 29.10.2024 will be necessary which is as under: 8. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation as quoted above fully demonstrate that there is proper consideration of allotment of chak matter between petitioner and respondent No.2 who are real brother. 9. I also perused the C.H. Form 23 of petitioner and respondent No.3 which also demonstrate that both parties have been adjusted on their original plots according to their share as for as possible. 10. Perusal of the spot map/ chak map annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition demonstrate that plot No.385 is situated adjacent to chak marg rather P.W.D. road, as such there is no illegality in the allotment of chak map to the chak holder under the impugned order. The Government orders as well as circular issued from time to time provides for allotment of chak on the road side plot to the original tenure holder according to their share facing road side, but the same will not be applicable to the plot situated adjacent to the chak marg. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out against the impugned orders adjusting the chak to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 who are real brothers. 12. Writ petiton is dismissed. 13 No orders as to costs.