SUDHIR NARAIN, J, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 26-1 1-1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondents and making ad justment in the chaks of the parties. 2. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are co-tenure- holders. During the consolidation proceedings they were allotted separate chaks. Dudh Nath, respondent No. 3, dis-satisfied with the chak allotted to him filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolida tion dismissed his appeal. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion he preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision by order dated 26-11-1981 making certain ad justment in the chaks of the petitioners and respondent No. 3. The petitioners, aggrieved against this order, have filed this petition. 3. I have heard Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. D. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that Assistant Settle ment Officer Consolidation had dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that it was not established before it that in fact it was filed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 could not have decided the revision on merits. It was open for respondent No. 1 to determine the matter to be considered by the Settlement Officer Consolidation afresh. He has placed reliance upon the decision Tirath v. Joint Director Consolidation, Basti and others, 1985 ACJ 315, wherein it was held that the revisional authority is to confine itself to the decision in appeal and the grounds given for decision in that order. It is not open to the revisional authority to go into the question of merit while exercising power under Section 48 (1) of the Act. He cannot exercise the power suo moto to decide the revision on merits. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. The petitioners themselves sub mitted arguments on merits of the case. Respondent No. 1 was not exercising suo moto power to decide the revision on merits merely because it has summoned the record. Arguments were heard on merits and thereafter the parties agreed that respondent No. 1 may himself inspect the spot in question. The petitioners themselves sub mitted arguments on merits of the case. Respondent No. 1 was not exercising suo moto power to decide the revision on merits merely because it has summoned the record. Arguments were heard on merits and thereafter the parties agreed that respondent No. 1 may himself inspect the spot in question. The parties agreed that as the matter related to the allotment of chaks it may be properly decided by making spot inspection and once the par ties agreed to it and respondent No. 1 decided the matter, the petitioners cannot now urge that respondent No. 1 acted il legally in deciding the revision on merits. 5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the arguments of the learned coun sel for the parties and thereafter made spot inspection. He did not prepare any memo of inspections and further after making spot inspection he did not again gave op portunity of hearing to the petitioners. The reliance has been placed upon the decision Jeet Narain v. D. D. C. and others, 1983 Revenue Reports 439, wherein it was observed that requirement of preparation of spot inspection memo is not merely a formality, but it has to be prepared so as to give opportunity to the parties to file ob jections against it. In Ramdeo v. D. D. C. and others, 1980 AWC 593, it was observed that after hearing, a date is fixed for local in spection and after local inspection is made it is appropriate that the authority con cerned should further give opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. It is not denied that revision was heard on merits and after hearing the revision on merits respondent No. 1 fixed the date for making spot inspection. The arguments of the parties were heard on 19-11-1991 and in presence of the parties and their counsel the following order was passed: "aaj PESH HUI. UBHAY PAKSHON KI POORNA ROOP SE BAHAS SUNI GAL VASTE STHAL NIRIKSHAN DINANK 25-11-81 PESH HO. " 7. The petitioners were fully aware about the date fixed for spot inspection as the order was passed in their presence. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that on the spot inspection the par ties were further heard on the spot. " 7. The petitioners were fully aware about the date fixed for spot inspection as the order was passed in their presence. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that on the spot inspection the par ties were further heard on the spot. This averment contained in paragraph 12 of the counter- affidavit has not been specifically denied in the rejoinder-affidavit. 8. The petitioners must show that any prejudice was caused to them. The argu ments were fully concluded on 19th November, 1981. Only spot verification was to be done by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had raised two objec tions regarding his chak. He was allotted two chaks. He was given on Udan Chak and the second chak was in L shape. The matter was to be adjusted in such a way that a compact and rectangular chak of all the tenure-holders was carved out and possib ly on their original holdings. Respondent No. 1 tried to carve out the chaks of all the tenure-holders accordingly and for that purpose he wanted to make spot inspec tion Respondent No. 1 in the order has mentioned that the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have been given chaks substantially on their original holdings making necessary modifications. A perusal of the order does not indicate that any injustice has been caused to any of the parties. 9. The petitioners have not made any averment that any of the facts stated by respondent No. 1 in its order is incorrect in relation to the spot inspection. In case the inspection memo was not prepared by respondent No. 1 and any fact stated by respondent No. 1 in its order was incorrect it was open to the petitioner to indicate in the writ petition that because the inspec tion memo was not prepared they were prejudiced and were not given opportunity to file objection. They have also not filed any application before the respondent No. 1 indicating that because inspection memo was not prepared the facts by respondent No. 1 in its order regarding spot possession was incorrect. The petitioners were thus not prejudiced by non-preparation of spot memo by respondent No. 1. 10. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they have not been granted any passage to reach upto their Abadi land through the chaks. The petitioners were thus not prejudiced by non-preparation of spot memo by respondent No. 1. 10. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they have not been granted any passage to reach upto their Abadi land through the chaks. It does not appear that this controversy was raised by the petitioners before respon dent No. 1. Secondly this fact has been denied by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has recorded finding that all the chaks have been carved out substantially on the original holdings of the parties. 11. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .