JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that there is a dispute about the area of plot no. 287. According to Annexure 1 and the order of the Consolidation Officer the area of the disputed plot has been treated as 3 Bighas. An appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer had been dismissed but an observation had been made to the effect that after enquiry and investigation the consolidation officer may refer the matter if the area of plot no. 287 is found incorrect. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority the petitioner had gone in revision and the revision appears to have been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that once the area of plot no. 287 was found as 3 Big as on the basis of a compromise and also according to the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, that entry cannot be disturbed by the appellate authority specially when the appeal has been dismissed. 3. Second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that when a review petition had been dismissed, the order of the consolidation officer became final and it cannot be disturbed in appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am not satisfied that the two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have any force. So far as the compromise is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that the compromise was in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and that compromise cannot be treated as binding as regards the title of a tenure holder. Before the Consolidation Officer, the title of the tenure holder is to be decided, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot bank upon the compromise before the revenue court in a miscellaneous proceeding. 5. As regards the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, it is sufficient to observe that when a dispute arises before the Assistant Consolidation Officer that dispute is to be referred to be decided by the Consolidation Officer. 5. As regards the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, it is sufficient to observe that when a dispute arises before the Assistant Consolidation Officer that dispute is to be referred to be decided by the Consolidation Officer. Any report made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer would not be a substantial evidence to conclude the matter in favour of a party in whose favour the report is. If the consolidation officer has acted on the report and in appeal the appellate authority feels doubtful about the area of the disputed land, it can make suitable direction. It is well known by now that technicality of pleadings or procedure before the consolidation authorities contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable. Therefore. I do not find that any manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioner because of the observations of the appellate authority after dismissal of the appeal. If there is really any incorrect entry regarding plot no. 287, it is the duty of the State to rectify that entry and do what is proper and in accordance with law. To my mind, there is no irreparable loss to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the revisional court has made an observation to the effect that the old entry cannot be changed in a miscellaneous proceeding contemplated by the U.P. Land Revenue Act. It would be open to the consolidation officer while deciding the claim of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the appellate authority to decide the controversy irrespective of any observation made by the revisional court in the impugned judgment. It would be open to the petitioner to take up all legal pleas before the consolidation officer. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. A copy of this order may be given to the petitioner on receipt of usual charges within 48 hours.