JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Triveni Shankar, for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 23.4.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.1.2014 passed in proceeding under section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Plot 28 (area 8-17-1 Bigha) of village Mathrafipur alias Shivdaspur, pargana Saidpur, district Ghazipur was original holdings of Kripa Shankar (now represented by respondents-3 to 5), Ram Subhag, Jagdish, Subhash (the petitioner) sons of Har Govind and Smt. Vidya Devi widow of Kailash, in which they had equal 1/5th share each. During partal in consolidation, an area of 0-2-10 bigha of plot 28/1 was found as abadi and remaining area of 8-14-11 bigha of plot 28/2 was agricultural land. 3. In consolidation, Kripa Shankar (chak-11) was allotted chak on plots 24 (area 0-4-0 bigha), 25 (area 0-3-10 bigha) and 28/2 (area 1-13-3 bigha) (total area 2-0-13 bigha), which was numbered as new plot 104. New abadi plot 105 was left on plot 24 (area 0-1-17). Nali, new plot 106 was carved out on plot 28/2 (area 0-1-10 bigha), The petitioner (chak-241) was allotted his second chak on plot 28/2 (area 1-9-13 bigha), which was numbered as new plot 107. Old abadi of the petitioner and his co-sharers, which were on plot 26/2 (area 0-4-0 bigha) and 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) (total 0-6-0 bigha) was numbered as new plot 108. Old plot 26/1 (area 0-6-0 bigha) was numbered as new plot 109, is banjar land. Ram Subhag (chak-174) was allotted his second chak on plot 28/2 (area 1-9-5 bigha), which was numbered as new plot 110. Ram Subhag executed a sale-deed dated 27.1.1987, of his second chak on plot 28/2 (area 1-9-5 bigha) to Biraju (respondent-7) and Ghurbhari (now represented by respondent-6), and their names were recorded over it. 4. There was no dispute relating to allotment of chaks between the parties at this place. Chaks of the village were confirmed on 30.1.1988. Thereafter possession over confirmed chaks were delivered to the chak holders. Notification under section 52 of the Act was issued on 23.11.2002. Ghurbhari (wrongly written as Sukhari) son of Jiut filed an application dated 7.1.1997 before Settlement Officer Consolidation for correction of final consolidation map of new plots-107, 108 and 110. Chaks of the village were confirmed on 30.1.1988. Thereafter possession over confirmed chaks were delivered to the chak holders. Notification under section 52 of the Act was issued on 23.11.2002. Ghurbhari (wrongly written as Sukhari) son of Jiut filed an application dated 7.1.1997 before Settlement Officer Consolidation for correction of final consolidation map of new plots-107, 108 and 110. It has been stated in the application that chak-174 was carved out of old plot 28/2 up to the road in its eastern side. In final consolidation map old abadi (new plot 108) has been wrongly shown in southern side of old plot 26 and in eastern side of chak 174, due to which, in between chak 174 and road in its eastern side, plot 108 has been shown. Thus final consolidation map was not correctly prepared and liable to be corrected. 5. Settlement Officer Consolidation registered the case under section 42-A of the Act, for correction of map and called for a report. Assistant Consolidation Officer after spot inspection submitted his report dated 29.3.1997, recommending for correction of map, which was approved by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 15.4.1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 24.9.1997 for recall of the order dated 15.4.1997, which was allowed on 23.1.2007. Thereafter, Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 11.4.2012 called for a fresh report from Tracer, who after examining CH Form-2-A of old plots 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, CH Forms-23, 41 and 45 of the affected persons, submitted his report dated 18.4.2012. In his report, he found that new plots 104 and 105 are rightly located in final consolidation map. New plot 106 (nali), which was carved out on plot 28/2 (area 0-1-10 bigha) has been wrongly shown in final consolidation map in old abadi plot 28/1 (new plot 108). The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to allot nali over old abadi land as such map of plot 106 was liable to corrected, deleting its eastern portion, which is shown in old abadi plot 28/1. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to allot nali over old abadi land as such map of plot 106 was liable to corrected, deleting its eastern portion, which is shown in old abadi plot 28/1. New plot 107, which was carved out from old plot 28/2 (area 1-9-13 bigha) has been wrongly shown upto road in eastern side although in its eastern side old abadi plot 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) was lying by the side of road as such eastern portion of old abadi plot 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) was liable to be shifted from south to north, in east of plot 107 in final consolidation map and area of abadi plot 108 has to be deducted from southern side of old plot 26 and east of new plot 110. Southern boundary of new plot 107 was liable to be shifted to the extent of 1 latha 7 links towards south. Abadi plot 108 is bigger by 0.007 hectare than its actual area in the map, excess area was liable to be reduced. Area of 0-2-10 bigha of old abadi plot 28/1, was also liable to be shifted in north to old plot 26/2 and southern boundary of plot 108 has to be shifted in north, taking 6 latha from southern-eastern corner and this portion is required to be allocated in new plot 110. Accordingly correction of the map was recommended. Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties by order dated 23.4.2012 accepted the report of Tracer and directed for correction of final consolidation map of the aforesaid plots accordingly. 6. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 14/1284/1344) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation ADM (F & R), who by impugned order dated 30.1.2014; held that the petitioner has not filed any objection against the report of Tracer. Tracer in his report has found that final consolidation map was not prepared correctly. Section42-A of the Act authorizes Settlement Officer Consolidation to correct mistake in final consolidation records. Final consolidation-map was not prepared according to confirmed chak-map as such it has been rightly corrected by Settlement Officer Consolidation and there is no illegality in his order. On these findings the revision has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. Section42-A of the Act authorizes Settlement Officer Consolidation to correct mistake in final consolidation records. Final consolidation-map was not prepared according to confirmed chak-map as such it has been rightly corrected by Settlement Officer Consolidation and there is no illegality in his order. On these findings the revision has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sukhari, who had moved the application dated 7.1.1997 had no locus standi to file correction application. There was no dispute in respect of the chak between the parties at any stage. After confirmation of the Chaks, possession was delivered to various chak holders in the year 1988. Chak-174 was not up to road in its eastern side nor possession up to road was given to chak holder 174. Chak/holder-174 did not ever raise any objection. However, Kripa Shankar in the name of a stranger Sukhari has filed an application for correction of chak map, after eight years of delivery of possession. Chak 241 of the petitioner was upto road in eastern side, which was proved from old settlement map, which shows that plot 28/2 in northern side was up to road. In confirmed chak-map also, chak 241 was up to road. Final consolidation map was prepared on the basis of old settlement map, CH Form-23, 41 and 45 of chak 241 and confirmed chak-map. There was no mistake in final consolidation map of plot new plot 107 but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally shifted abadi plot 108 in the eastern side of plot 107, due to which the petitioner has been illegally deprived from frontage on road side lying in east of his plot 107. Chak 174 was not up to road in eastern side, which was proved from old settlement map, CH Form-23, 41 and 45 of chak 174. In confirmed chak map also, chak 174 was not up to road. Final consolidation-map was prepared on the basis of old settlement-map, CH Form-23, 41 and 45 of chak 174 and confirmed chak-map. There was to mistake in final consolidation-map of new plot-110 but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally shifted abadi plot 108, from eastern side of plot 110 and illegally provided frontage to plot 110 on road side lying in east. Chaks cannot be altered in correction of map proceedings. There was to mistake in final consolidation-map of new plot-110 but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally shifted abadi plot 108, from eastern side of plot 110 and illegally provided frontage to plot 110 on road side lying in east. Chaks cannot be altered in correction of map proceedings. Houses of Kripa Shankar in north, Jagdish in middle and Subhash (the petitioner) in south are situated in old abadi (new plot 108). Due to this correction, now house of Subhash will go in new plot 110. Impugned orders are illegal and is liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as locus standi of Sukhari to file correction application dated 7.1.1997 is concerned, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a writing error of the name of Gharbhari son of Jiut. Admittedly Ram Subhag (chak-174), who was allotted his second chak on plot 28/2 (area 1-9-5 bigha), (new plot 110), executed a sale deed dated 27.1.1987, of his second chak on plot 28/2 (area 1-9-5 bigha) to Biraju and Ghurbhari sons of Jiut (now represented by respondent-7 and respondent-6). Thus in the application, Sukhari son of Jiut was an error of writing of the name of Ghurbhari son of Jiut. The petitioner has not raised any objection in this respect before Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the writ petition this point has been raised to confuse the issue. Consolidation is final settlement of the record of right of the tenure holder. Incorrect records prepared during consolidation cannot be maintained for ever. Division Bench of this Court in Gaffoor v. Addl. Commissioner 1978 AWC 836 (DB), has held that if there is mistake in settlement records then the authorities are not only competent but they are under statutory obligation to correct it as incorrect record cannot be maintained. In this case, competent authorities have found that consolidation map was not prepared correctly as such correction has been made. This Court will not be justified to set aside the order and restore incorrect map, in the garb of locus standi. 9. So far as correction in final consolidation map is concerned, Tracer in his report dated 18.4.2012 found that final consolidation map has not been correctly prepared. This Court will not be justified to set aside the order and restore incorrect map, in the garb of locus standi. 9. So far as correction in final consolidation map is concerned, Tracer in his report dated 18.4.2012 found that final consolidation map has not been correctly prepared. According to provisions of section 27(1) of the Act, final consolidation-map has to prepared on the basis of previous settlement map as revised under section 7, CH Form-2-A, 11, 23, 41 and 45 as well as confirmed chak-map. It may be mentioned that correctness of confirmed chak-map can also be examined on the basis of settlement-map as revised under section7, CH Form-2-A, 11, 23. In substance, Tracer in his report dated 18.4.2012 found that old plot 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) was found as abadi of the petitioner and his co-sharers during partal and was demarcated as plot 28/1 in the map revised under section 7 of the Act, was actually in north of old abadi plot 26 by the side of road. Old plot 26 was up to road in east and was surrounded in three side from remaining area of plot 28. New abadi plot 108 was made from old abadi plot 26/2 (area 0-4-0 bigha) and 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) but its area has been wrongly shown in the final consolidation map in south of old abadi plot 26 although in south of old abadi plot 26, chak-174, which was carved out on old plot 28/2 (now new plot 110). Thus mistake in final consolidation map was found in location of plots 107, 108 and 110. 10. The petitioner has filed confirmed chak map as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which shows that in east of chak 241, there was abadi land of plot 28/1 by the side of road, in east. Plot 26 was by the side of road in east and in south of plot 28/1. After plot 26, in south remaining area of old plot 28/2 was lying, which was allotted in chak-174. In final consolidation map (filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) new plot 107 of the petitioner has been shown up road in east and abadi plot 108 (which was carved out of plot 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) and 26/2 (area 0.4-0 bigha) was shown in east of new plot 110 of respondents-6 and 7. In final consolidation map (filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) new plot 107 of the petitioner has been shown up road in east and abadi plot 108 (which was carved out of plot 28/1 (area 0-2-10 bigha) and 26/2 (area 0.4-0 bigha) was shown in east of new plot 110 of respondents-6 and 7. New plot 109 of banjar land was carved out from old plot 26/1. Southern boundary line of plot 26 was in straight line in map as revised during consolidation under section 7 as well as in previous settlement-map. However, in final consolidation-map, abadi plot 108 is curved towards south in east of plot 110, which was an apparent mistake and has been corrected. There is neither any illegality in the report of Tracer dated 18.4.2012 nor any illegality in the orders passed by respondents-1 and 2. 11. So far as arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that houses of Kripa Shankar are in north, Jagdish in middle and thereafter Subhash (the petitioner) in south in old abadi (new plot 108) and due to this correction, now house of Subhash will go in plot 110 of respondents-6 and 7, is concerned this is an imaginary argument. Only map has been corrected, which is a paper transaction. As stated above abadi plot 26 was up to road in east. None of portion of plot 28/1 was in south of plot 26. Southern boundary of plot 26 was in straightway but in final consolidation map it has been illegally curved towards south in east of plot 110. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. ………………