JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, for the petitioner/review applicant and Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 09.04.2015. The petitioner has filed this application for review of the judgment. 3. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 08.07.2005 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.04.2006 passed in the proceeding under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 46) under Section 42-A of the Act, on 10.08.1998 for correction of final consolidation map of old plots 676, 683 684 and 685 (new plots 1127, 1128, 1129 and 1130). It has been stated that old plots 683 and 684 were property of Shivji Temple. Plot 683 was out of consolidation while an area of 512 Sq. meter of plot 684 was included in consolidation and its valuation was determined and allotted for bye-pass road and remaining area of plot 684 was out of consolidation. In final consolidation map, size of new plots 1128, 1129 and 1130 (which were carved out from old plots 683 and 684) was made smaller than previous settlement map. 5. On the aforesaid application Tracer submitted his report dated 06.12.1999. In this report, he mentioned that area of plot 676 was recorded in previous settlement record as 2.4300 hectare and in survey sheet prepared during consolidation as 2.895 hectare, area of plot 683 was recorded in previous settlement record as 0.4100 hectare and in survey sheet prepared during consolidation as 0.3500 hectare, area of plot 684 was recorded in previous settlement record as 0.2350 hectare and in survey sheet prepared during consolidation as 0.2498 hectare and area of plot 685 was recorded in previous settlement record as 2.5300 hectare and in survey sheet prepared during consolidation as 2.4300 hectare. In final consolidation map size of old plots 683 and 684 were made according to survey sheet. Map of new plot 1130 was liable to be corrected as its width has been shown as four meter in final consolidation map while it should be eight meter according to its acquired area. 6. In final consolidation map size of old plots 683 and 684 were made according to survey sheet. Map of new plot 1130 was liable to be corrected as its width has been shown as four meter in final consolidation map while it should be eight meter according to its acquired area. 6. After remand, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 08.07.2005 held that final consolidation map was prepared according to survey sheet prepared at the time of revision of map under Section 7 of the Act. If there was any mistake in survey sheet, then objection under Section 9 of the Act, was required to be filed. No one filed any objection under Section 9 of the Act. Under Section 42-A of the Act, only clerical and arithmetical mistake can be corrected. On these findings, he dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 330) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated 21.04.2006 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the revision. The writ petition has also been dismissed on the same ground by order dated 09.04.2015. 7. Along with the affidavit filed in the review application, the petitioner has attached CH Form-2-A, 41 and 45 of plots 683 and 684. On its basis, it has been argued that in the survey conducted according to the provision of Section 7 of the Act, area of plot 683 was mentioned in CH Form-2-A as 0.2529 hectare as grove of temple, 0.032 hectare in possession of Feran and an area of 0.1518 hectare was shown as building of temple. These plots were allotted new plots 1128-ka, 1128-kha and 1128-ga, in CH Form-41 and recorded as such in CH Form-45. Thus total area was recorded in final consolidation record as 0.4367 hectare, while its settlement area was 0.4100 hectare. In CH Form-2-A, area of plot 684 was found as 0.2480 hectare as grove of temple out of which 0.0512 hectare was taken for bye-pass road. These plots were allotted new plots 1129 (area 0.1986 hectare) and 1130 (area 0.1280 hectare) (in which 0.0512 hectare was of plot 684 and 0.0768 hectare was of plot 685 are included), in CH Form-41 and recorded as such in CH Form-45. These plots were allotted new plots 1129 (area 0.1986 hectare) and 1130 (area 0.1280 hectare) (in which 0.0512 hectare was of plot 684 and 0.0768 hectare was of plot 685 are included), in CH Form-41 and recorded as such in CH Form-45. Thus total area of plot 684 was recorded in final consolidation record as 0.2498 hectare, while its settlement area was 0.2498 hectare. Tracer, in his report dated 06.12.1999 has mentioned the area of plots 683 and 684 as recorded in CH Form-2-A. Thus right from CH Form-2-A to CH Form-41 and 45, same area was recorded. Alleged area mentioned in survey sheet were never communicated to the petitioner. In final consolidation record area of plots 1128 (old plot 683) is recorded as 0.4367 hectare, 1129 (old plot 684) is recorded as and 0.1986 hectare and 1130 (old plots 684 and 685) was recorded as 0.1280 hectare. The map was liable to be corrected according to the final consolidation record. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Earlier, the petitioner did not file CH Form-2-A, 41 and 45, thus the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities that map was prepared according to survey sheet as no objection under Section 9 was filed by any one and such a correction could not be done in exercise of powers under Section 42-A of the Act, has been approved by this Court. Now after examination of CH Form-2-A, 41 and 45, it is proved that there was no much discrepancy in the area of old plots 683 and 684 (new plots 1128, 1129 and 1130) in final consolidation record. If no notice/CH Form-5 of alleged area of plots 683 and 684 as found/recorded in survey sheet was given to a tenure holder, then he is not expected to file any objection under Section 9 of the Act. Contrary to it, alleged area of plots 683 and 684 as found/recorded in survey sheet, has not been recorded in final consolidation record. 9. Final consolidation map is prepared according to the provisions of Section 27 (1) of Act, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the khasra chakbandi (CH Form-2-A), the annual register prepared under Section 10 (CH Form-11) and final allotment orders. 9. Final consolidation map is prepared according to the provisions of Section 27 (1) of Act, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the khasra chakbandi (CH Form-2-A), the annual register prepared under Section 10 (CH Form-11) and final allotment orders. In this case plot 683 was out of consolidation, while an area of 0.0512 hectare of plot 684 was included in consolidation and remaining area was out of consolidation. While preparing final consolidation map, consolidation authorities have totally ignored CH Form-2-A, 11, 41 and 45. Thus this was a mistake and liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 42-A of the Act. 10. Tracer, in his report dated 06.12.199 has mentioned that settlement area of plot 676 was 2.4300 hectare while in survey sheet its area has been found as 2.8950 hectare. It has been consistently held by this Court that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to enhance area of any plot than its area as recorded in last settlement record. Thus area of plot 676 has been enhanced without jurisdiction, which is also liable to be corrected as orders passed without jurisdiction is nullity. 11. Supreme Court in Alil Mollah v. State of W.B., (1996) 5 SCC 369 , M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278 , Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of M.P., (2004) 7 SCC 558 and Mayuram Subramanium Srinivasan Vs. CBI, (2006) 5 SCC 752 , held that to perpetuate an error is no virtue but to rectify it is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Supreme Court in M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 666 , judgments of this Court in The District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Badri Ram, 2003 (21) LCD 442 , U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer., 2003 (21) LCD 997 , Shyam Lal Sahu Vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi, 2006 (24) LCD 1479 , Ram Kalp Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (26) LCD 1099 and Sant Bux Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2010 (28) LCD 1366 , held that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of the record. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that judgment dated 09.04.2015 suffers from error apparent on the face of record and liable to be reviewed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that judgment dated 09.04.2015 suffers from error apparent on the face of record and liable to be reviewed. According Review application is allowed and judgment dated 09.04.2015 is reviewed and recalled. The writ petition is allowed. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.04.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties, in accordance with law as well as observations made above.