JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma along with Sri Ajeet Kumar, for the petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K.S. Suryavanshi, for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 13.02.2008 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 05.04.2008, passed in title proceedings under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Assistant Consolidation Officer referred a dispute that in basic consolidation year khata 334 total area of plots 34 was noted as 0.980 hectare and during partal its area was noted as 0.705 hectare, (while its total settlement area was recorded was 2.504 hectare and during partal its total area in different khatas was noted as 1.250 hectare). Similarly in khata 334, during partal area of plot 67 was noted as 0.480 hectare although its settlement area was 0.564 hectare and area of plot 819-M was noted as 0.983 hectare although its settlement area was 1.077 hectare. The case was registered as Case No. 715, under Section 9-A of the Act, before Consolidation Officer. Initially no one contested the dispute as such Consolidation Officer dismissed the case, by order dated 17.07.2002. Bachcha Lal Singh (respondent-10) filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order, which was recalled by order dated 16.12.2006. The petitioners filed applications for recall of order dated 16.12.2006, which were ultimately rejected by order dated 22.09.2007. Thereafter Kamalawati and others, land holders of khata 334 filed their objection for correcting area of plots 34, 67 and 819-M according to its settlement area. Chhote Lal and others and Bachcha Lal Singh also filed their separate objections for correction of area of plot 34, in their khatas. Consolidation Officer consolidated objections, framed issues and gave opportunity to parties to adduce evidence. 4. Before Consolidation Officer dispute relating to deficiency of area of plots 67 and 819-M were not contested. Various objections of the parties were confined in respect of area of plot 34 of village Salehnagar, pargana Dewan district Barabanki. Land holders of adjoining plots 33 and 35 were contesting the dispute. Settlement area of plot 34 was 2.504 hectare as recorded in various khatas of respondents-3 to 11 while during partal its area in different khatas was noted 0.980 hectare only. Thus there was deficiency of 1.524 hectare. 5. Land holders of adjoining plots 33 and 35 were contesting the dispute. Settlement area of plot 34 was 2.504 hectare as recorded in various khatas of respondents-3 to 11 while during partal its area in different khatas was noted 0.980 hectare only. Thus there was deficiency of 1.524 hectare. 5. The petitioners were original tenure holders of plot 33 (area 1.012 hectare) which was recorded in their names in basic consolidation year khata 53. Although total area of plot 33 was 2.744 hectare, which were recorded in different khatas but other co-sharers of plot 33 are now not contesting the matter. In CH Form-23, chak-115 of the petitioners consists chak out plots 33/1 (area 0.202 hectare, which is abadi), 33/3 (area 0.010 hectare, which is pakki nali) and 33/4 (area 0.250 hectare, which was grove). An area of 0.550 hectare of plot 33/2 was agricultural land and its valuation has been determined @ of 100 paisa. Thus area of plot 33 belonging to the petitioners as noted in their CH Form-5 is according to its settlement area. 6. Consolidation Officer called for a spot inspection report from Consolidator. The Consolidator submitted his report dated 10.01.2008, in respect of plots 30, 33 and 34. In respect of plot 34, he has mentioned that its total settlement area was 2.504 hectare. In khata 334, total settlement area of plot 34 was 0.980 hectare but on spot an area of 0.705 hectare was found. The parties then raised objection and stated that report of Consolidator was not clear. In respect of plot 34, he has mentioned that its total settlement area was 2.504 hectare. In khata 334, total settlement area of plot 34 was 0.980 hectare but on spot an area of 0.705 hectare was found. The parties then raised objection and stated that report of Consolidator was not clear. Consolidation Officer then vide order dated 30.01.2008 called for a report from Chief Tracer, who submitted his report dated 12.02.2008 after examination and measurements of area of adjoining plots of plot 34 on the basis of last settlement map, current survey sheet and area as recorded in CH Form-2-A. Tables contained in the report of Chief Tracer are reproduced below: - Measurement according to Survey Sheet Plot No. Settlement area as noted in CH Form 2-A Area as mentioned in Column 4 of CH Form 2-A Area as worked out on survey sheet Deficiency of area according to measurement Excess in area according to measurement 33 2.744 2.834 2.860 - 0.116 34 2.504 2.280 0.900 - 1.604 35 0.426 0.321 0.250 - 0.176 36 2.338 2.000 1.950 - 0.388 37 1.644 1.644 1.420 - 0.224 Measurement according to Settlement Map Plot No. Settlement area as noted in Ch Form 2-A Area as mentioned in Column 4 of CH Form 2-A Area as worked out on measurement in settlement map Deficiency in area Excess in area 33 2.744 2.834 3.740 - 0.996 34 2.504 2.280 1.210 1.294 - 35 0.426 0.321 0.440 - 0.014 36 2.338 2.000 2.280 0.058 - 37 1.644 1.644 1.560 0.084 - 7. On the basis of aforesaid comparative chart, Chief Tracer reported that in last settlement map, area of plot 33 was shown in excess to the extent of 0.996 hectare and in survey sheet also its area was in excess to the extent of 0.116 hectare. He suggested to correct survey sheet/map according to dotted lines by red ink by shifting boundaries of plots 33 and 34 in northern side. Due this correction in survey map, area of plot-33 would become according to its settlement area and deficiency in area of plots 34, 35 and 36 would be covered up to some extent. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.02.2008 decided the objections and directed for correcting survey sheet/map according to the report of Chief Tracer. Due this correction in survey map, area of plot-33 would become according to its settlement area and deficiency in area of plots 34, 35 and 36 would be covered up to some extent. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.02.2008 decided the objections and directed for correcting survey sheet/map according to the report of Chief Tracer. He directed to correct area of plot 33 as 2.744 hectare, 34 as 2.395 hectare, 35 as 0.370 hectare and 36 as 2.260 hectare. By this order, settlement area of plot 33 is not affected. While there is still some deficiency in settlement area of plots 34, 35 and 36. 8. Chhote Lal Singh filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2861) and Girija Singh and others (the petitioners) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2865), before Settlement Officer Consolidation from aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation, consolidated both the appeals and after hearing the parties, by order dated 20.03.2008 held that after report of Chief Tracer dated 12.02.2008, the parties were not given opportunity to file their objection/evidence. The order was passed ex parte without hearing the arguments. On these findings, he allowed the appeals, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.02.2008 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute afresh, after hearing the parties. 9. Smt. Kamalawati and others (respondents-3 to 10) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 762) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 05.04.2008 held that area of plot 33 was in excess to the extent of 0.996 hectare from its settlement area, in previous settlement map. The petitioners or other tenure holders of plot 33 did not raise any dispute under Section 9-A of the Act. Area of plot 34 was noted less to the extent of 0.275 hectare in khata 334 of Smt. Kamlawati while total deficiency of area of plot 34 was 1.524 hectare. The dispute was in respect of correction of area of plot 34, 35 and 36. There was no border dispute. Sufficient opportunity of evidence was given to the parties but no evidence was adduced by them. Consolidation Officer based his findings on the report of Chief Tracer and there was no illegality in it. The appeal was allowed only on the ground that after report dated 12.02.2008, arguments were not heard afresh, without pointing out any illegality in the order. Sufficient opportunity of evidence was given to the parties but no evidence was adduced by them. Consolidation Officer based his findings on the report of Chief Tracer and there was no illegality in it. The appeal was allowed only on the ground that after report dated 12.02.2008, arguments were not heard afresh, without pointing out any illegality in the order. There is a clear direction of Consolidation Commissioner U.P. for not exceeding area of any plot, more than its last settlement area. On these findings, he allowed the revision, set aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, affirmed the order of Consolidation Officer and directed to record abadi on spot as "shamil jot abadi" and also directed that border line of village Gheri will not be affected. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 10. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Chief Tracer had submitted his report on 12.02.2008 while Consolidation Officer decided the case by order dated 13.02.2008. After the report of Chief Tracer, the parties were not given any opportunity of objection/evidence nor arguments were heard. Findings of Settlement Officer Consolidation that after report of Chief Tracer dated 12.02.2008, the parties were not given any opportunity to file their objection/evidence nor arguments were heard, do not suffer from any illegality. The revision was filed against remand order and ought to have been dismissed. By the orders of respondents-1 and 2, grove land of the petitioners of plot 33/4 (area 0.250 hectare) was affected and its area is included in plot 36. Thus the petitioners have been deprived from his grove holdings of plot 33/4. A perusal of report of Chief Tracer shows that he has suggested to shift northern demarcation line of plot 33 towards north. After plot 33, in north another village Gheri is situated. Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to affect the border line of another village, lying within limit of another Tahsil, which was not in consolidation operation. Dispute relating correction of map of adjoining plots of village Gheri to plot 33 is already going on under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Collector alone can decide border dispute of two villages lying in different Tahsil. Impugned orders are totally without jurisdiction. Dispute relating correction of map of adjoining plots of village Gheri to plot 33 is already going on under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Collector alone can decide border dispute of two villages lying in different Tahsil. Impugned orders are totally without jurisdiction. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is self contradictory, in as much as on the one hand he has directed to shift border line of plot 33 towards north but at the same time he has directed the authorities that border of village Gheri would not be affected. He directed that abadi shall be recorded as "shamil jot". If border of village Gheri is not affected then it is not possible to shift border of plot 33 towards north. Total effect of the order would be area of plot 33 would go in plots 34, 35 and 36. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be quashed. 11. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. Division Bench of this Court in Deena Nath v. DDC and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1396 (DB) held that revision against remand order is maintainable. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the matter was 25 years old. None of the parties could adduce any evidence as such instead of remanding the case, Settlement Officer Consolidation ought to have decided the dispute on merit. Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the dispute on merit as such without pointing out any illegality in the order, it cannot be set aside only on the ground that he had interfered with the remand order. 12. So far as the arguments that there is border dispute of two villages Salehnagar and Gheri lying in two different Tahsils is concerned, Chief Tracer in his report dated 12.02.2008 has stated that in last settlement map area of plot 33 was shown in excess to the extent of 0.996 hectare. In present survey sheet also its area was in excess to the extent of 0.116 hectare. By the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.02.2008, area of plot 33 was corrected as 2.744 hectare, 34 as 2.395 hectare, 35 as 0.370 hectare, 36 as 2.260 hectare. In present survey sheet also its area was in excess to the extent of 0.116 hectare. By the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.02.2008, area of plot 33 was corrected as 2.744 hectare, 34 as 2.395 hectare, 35 as 0.370 hectare, 36 as 2.260 hectare. Thus area of plot 33 is according to its settlement area while area of plots 34, 35 and 36 are still deficient to the extent of 0.109 hectare, 0.056 hectare and 0.078 hectare respectively. Total enhanced area of plots 34, 35 and 36 is 0.673 hectare which is much less to 0.996 hectare (which is total exceeding area of plot 33). Thus border of village Gheri is not affected in any way. 13. In the light of the allegations made by the petitioners in this respect, this Court summoned Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation along with original record, who appeared before this Court and Consolidation Officer also filed his affidavit sworn on 25.02.2011 stating therein that border of village Gheri is not affected due to impugned orders. There is no material to prove that border of village Gheri is affected. Arguments in this respect is misconceived. 14. Although before Consolidation Officer, the petitioners are not given any opportunity to file objection/evidence against the report of Chief Tracer dated 12.02.2008 but in appeal, revision and writ petition no evidence has been filed to contradict the report of Chief Tracer, which has been submitted after examination of last settlement map and present survey sheet as well as entries in basic consolidation year khatauni and CH Form-2-A. It has been specifically held that area of plot 33 belonging to the petitioners is not affected either in consolidation record or in map and absolutely no prejudice has been caused to them. As stated above, shifting of border line of plots 33 and 34 towards north is within the limit of excess area of plot 33. Thus no question arises to either decrease area of plot 33 or affect border of village Gheri. Shifting the border lines or the area is in map and not on the spot as map has not been correctly prepared. Consolidation authorities are well within their jurisdiction to correct the settlement map while revising it under Section 7 of the Act. 15. Shifting the border lines or the area is in map and not on the spot as map has not been correctly prepared. Consolidation authorities are well within their jurisdiction to correct the settlement map while revising it under Section 7 of the Act. 15. The arguments that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is self contradictory, in as much as on the one hand he has directed to shift border line of plot 33 towards north but at the same time he had restrained the authorities that border of village Gheri would not be affected, has no substance. Similarly direction that abadi shall be recorded as "shamil jot" will not affect right of any person as abadi belonging to particular person will be recorded along with his agricultural holdings. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. 16. It has been held by this Court that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to extend the area of any plot than its settlement area. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.