JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J.- This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.3.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur by which he has ordered correction of map according to the allotment of chaks to the parties and also with regard to the chak-roads etc. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined only to location of plot Nos. 1125, 1126 1127 and 1128 which were formed of old plot No. 1506. In the present writ petition we are not concerned with regard to the dispute about other plots in respect of which correction of map has been ordered. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ordered that new plot no. 1126 shall be shown in the map at the place where new plot no. 1127 has been mentioned and at a place where 1127 is mentioned at present, plot No. 1128 be shown at a place where 1126 is shown in the map plot No. 1128 be shown. It is not disputed that plot no. 1126 belongs to Chhotai opposite party no. 2 and new plot No. 1127 belongs to Baba petitioner No. l and new No. 1128 belongs to Rajarm petitioner No. 2 and that new No. 1125 belongs to Pakhandi. This order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on a reference submitted by the Consolidation Officer under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed this order in exercise of powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the referring Consolidation Authority had not heard the petitioner, and as such, the impugned order being violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be quashed. I am unable to agree with this contention. The consolidation officer in his reference dated 1.1 1983 has clearly mentioned that he heard the counsel for the parties. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also in the impugned order, mentioned that he has heard the petitioners as well as the other affected tenure-holders and also perused the relevant record and the report submitted and that after taking into consideration the relevant facts with reference to the record he has passed the aforesaid order directing correction of map. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also in the impugned order, mentioned that he has heard the petitioners as well as the other affected tenure-holders and also perused the relevant record and the report submitted and that after taking into consideration the relevant facts with reference to the record he has passed the aforesaid order directing correction of map. Thus I find that the impugned order is not violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be said to be illegal or void on that ground. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the chaks were allotted to the parties vide order dated 31st March, 1970 and since then the parties are in possession over the land which was allotted to them in their respective chaks. Learned counsel contended that by the impugned order the allotment which was made by the aforesaid order stands modified which could not be done after a lapse of such a long period; nor the Deputy Director Consolidation gets a jurisdiction to modify the said order, in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act. I am unable to agree with this contention. By the impugned order what has been done is that the map which was wrongly prepared by the subordinate consolidation authorities stood corrected. The allotment of chaks made to the respective parties has not been touched or altered. What has been done is that the allotted land to the parties has been shown at the place where it ought to have been in the map as per allotment. It is not disputed that plot nos. 1125, 1126, 1127 and 1128 form plot No. 1506 (old), and that an area of O.06 acres of this plot was valued at the rate of two annas exchange ratio while an area O.21 acres was valued at exchange ratio of eight annas. 5. The land measuring 0.06 acres of plot No. 1506 was valued at a lower exchange ratio on the ground that there were pits on account of fact that on this portion of plot which is adjacent to the road running by the side of it there are Khatis. Certain portion of land of the valuation of two annas of plot no 1506 was allotted to Chhotai. Certain portion of land of the valuation of two annas of plot no 1506 was allotted to Chhotai. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after looking to the records and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that this plot No 1126 should be shown on the map at a place where plot no. 1127 is shown. There appears to be no error in that order. All the records prepared during Consolidation operation should be accurately maintained. If there is any error in them and it is not prepared in accordance with the allotment actually made to the tenure-holders, the same could be corrected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act. There is thus no error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order. 6. In the result I find no substance in this writ petition and the impugned order, in my opinion, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly, dismissed. Opposite party No. 2 has put in appearance and has filed counter affidavit. I, however, direct that the parties should bear their own costs.