Satya Poot Mehrotra,J. - 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 7. 4. 2010(Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition) and the order dated 29. 11. 2007 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2). 2. It appears that in the Consolidation Proceedings, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 were given Chak on Plot No. 966, area 0. 0913 Square Metres. Copy of C. H. Form No. 45 in respect of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition . It further appears that the petitioner was given Chak on Plot no. 967, area 0. 5735 Square Metres. It further appears that at the stage of preparation of Final Map, mistake was committed in showing the areas of Plot Nos. 966 and 967. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed Objections in this regard. Reference under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953was made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2). 3. A Report dated 22. 2. 2003 was submitted by the Mukhya Anurekhak, Soraon, Allahabad. It was, inter-alia, stated in the said Report that as per the Map, the area of Plot No. 966 came to 0. 1400 Square Metres while the area of Plot No. 967 came to 0. 4900 Square Metres . Thus, the area of Plot No. 966 was increased by 0. 0434 Square Metres while the area of Plot No. 967 was increased by 0. 0835 Square Metres; and that accordingly, the area of 0. 043 Square Metres was deducted from Plot No. 966 towards Eastern Side in the North-South direction, and the said area was included in Plot No. 967. Copy of the said Report with proposed changes in the areas of Plot No. 966 and Plot No. 967 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition. 4. A perusal of the proposed changes in the Map as per the said Report appearing at Page Nos. 15 and 16 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition, shows that the area reduced from Plot No. 966 was in triangular shape and it included the area of Plot No. 966 on the road side. The area of Plot No. 966 on the road side was consequently reduced. 5. 15 and 16 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition, shows that the area reduced from Plot No. 966 was in triangular shape and it included the area of Plot No. 966 on the road side. The area of Plot No. 966 on the road side was consequently reduced. 5. The said Report dated 22. 2. 2003 was approved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 2) by the order dated 23. 2. 2003 by making endorsement on the said Report itself as is clear from a perusal of Page No. 15 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition . Consequently, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed Restoration Application praying for recall of the said order dated 23. 2. 2003 along with an Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of dalay. 6. By the order dated 29. 11. 2007, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) allowed the said Delay Condonation Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and condoned the delay in filing the said Restoration Application. Further, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) allowed the said Restoration Application filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5, set-aside the said order dated 23. 2. 2003, and restored the Reference to its Original number. Copy of the said order dated 29. 11. 2007 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition. 7. A fresh Report dated 7. 4. 2010 was submitted by the Mukhya Anurekhak, Soraon, Allahabad. This report reiterated that as per Form No. 41, the area of Plot No. 966 was 0. 0931 Square Metres while the are of Plot No. 967 was 0. 5735 Square Metres. However, as per the Map, the area of Plot No. 966 was. 0. 1400 Square Metres, and the area of Plot No. 967 was 0. 4900 Square Metres. Thus, in the Map, the actual area of Plot No. 966 was increased by 0. 0434 Square Metres, while the actual area of Plot No. 967 was reduced by 0. 0835 Square Metres. 8. Accordingly, it was proposed that the area of 0. 0434 Square Metres be deducted from Plot No. 966, and the same be added in Plot No. 967. The proposed Map showing the changes in Plot Nos. 966 and 967 was submitted along with the said Report. 0835 Square Metres. 8. Accordingly, it was proposed that the area of 0. 0434 Square Metres be deducted from Plot No. 966, and the same be added in Plot No. 967. The proposed Map showing the changes in Plot Nos. 966 and 967 was submitted along with the said Report. It was proposed that the reduction in the area of Plot No. 966 be made by taking out an area in rectangular shape on Southern side of the said Plot. This was evidently done in order to avoid any decrease in the area of Plot No. 966, which was on the road -side. 9. By the order dated 7. 4. 2010, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 2) approved the said Report submitted by the Mukhya Anurekhak, Soraon, Allahabad after hearing both the parties. 10. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 11. I have heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner at length, and perused the record. 12. As regards, the order dated 29. 11. 2007(Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition), it is submitted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) erred in allowing the said Delay Condonation Application and the said Restoration Application filed by the respondent no. 3 to 5 . 13. I have considered the submission made by the Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself to accept the same. 14. A perusal of the order dated 29. 11. 2007 shows that the said Delay Condonation Application and the said Restoration Application were allowed by the said order dated 29. 11. 2007 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) after issuing notice to the concerned parties, and after hearing the concerned parties . Cogent reasons have been given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) in passing the said order dated 29. 11. 2007. No illegality is shown to have been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) in passing the said Order dated 29. 11. 2007 allowing the said Delay Condonation Application and the said Restoration Application filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5. 15. As regards the said order dated 7. 4. 11. 2007. No illegality is shown to have been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) in passing the said Order dated 29. 11. 2007 allowing the said Delay Condonation Application and the said Restoration Application filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5. 15. As regards the said order dated 7. 4. 2010 (Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition), Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) had earlier approved the said Report dated 22. 2. 2003, submitted by Mukhya Anurekhak, Soraon, Allahabad, whereby the area was deducted from Plot No. 966 towards Eastern Side in the North South direction, and that the said area was included in Plot No. 967 . The petitioner remained in possession of the Plot in question, and in the circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) erred in passing the said order dated 7. 4. 2010, changing the shape of the area to be deducted from Plot No. 966. 16. I find myself unable to accept the submission made by Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. As noted above, the changes proposed in the said Report dated 22. 2. 2003 provided for reduction of area of Plot No. 966 which was on the road side, i. e., towards Eastern Side of the said Plot in North-South direction, and the said area was to be added in Plot No. 967 included in the Chak of the petitioner, thereby further increasing the road-side area of Plot No. 967 which falls in the Chak of the petitioner. 18. It may be mentioned that as per the Report dated 22. 2. 2003 as well as the Report dated 7. 4. 2010, Plot No. 967 is on the road-side . In order to balance equity between the concerned parties, the said order dated 7. 4. 2010 has proposed reduction in area of Plot No. 966 by taking out the area from the Southern Portion of the said Plot and adding the same to Plot No. 967 . This will evidently not reduce the area of Plot No. 966 as it existed on the road-side, while the deficiency in the area of Plot No. 967 falling in the Chak of the petitioner would be made good. 19. This will evidently not reduce the area of Plot No. 966 as it existed on the road-side, while the deficiency in the area of Plot No. 967 falling in the Chak of the petitioner would be made good. 19. In my view, no illegality has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) in passing the impugned order dated 7. 4. 2010 accepting the Report dated 7. 4. 2010 submitted by the Mukhya Anurekhak, Soraon, Allahabad. 20. In any view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.