JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226-of the Constitution. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted the following points. 2. The first point is that the spot inspection was not made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he did not prepare memo of inspection. Reliance was made on Rama Shanker Upadhay v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (1982 R.D. page 389). But this case is totally besides the point. Section 48 or any other rule framed under the C.H. Act does not contemplate that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should make spot inspection or should prepare a memo of inspection. Consequently this case is of no assistance to the present case. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard. But the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly states that both the parties have been heard. The statement of fact made in the judgment has to be accepted as correct unless it is shown before that very authority that the statement of fact was incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that in view of Rule 24-D of Rules the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have made spot inspection. But Rule 24-D is applicable only to the inspection made by Consolidation Officer and settlement Officer (Consolidation). It has nothing to do with the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Consequently this rule is also not applicable to the present case. Ultimately the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been deprived of the private source of irrigation. But in the fifth paragraph of the impugned judgment it has been stated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner and Birbal (applicant in the version) both have agreed to the adjustments made. Consequently there is no question of the petitioner feeling aggrieved. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was very particular in his arguments that the petitioner was not heard. In case it is so, it is open to him to file restoration application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and to demonstrate there that he was not heard. It is hoped that the Deputy Director of Consolidation would consider the grievances of the petitioner there. 4. In case it is so, it is open to him to file restoration application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and to demonstrate there that he was not heard. It is hoped that the Deputy Director of Consolidation would consider the grievances of the petitioner there. 4. Consequently I do not find any merits in this writ petition and dismiss the same summarily.