JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri V.S. Kushawaha along with Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Awdhesh Narayan Srivastava, for respondents-4 and 5. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.07.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.01.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 09.06.2016, passed in proceedings under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Thagga (now represented by respondents-4 and 5) filed an application dated 26.12.1989, under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for correction of map, relating his plot 62 (area 1-19-12 bigha) of village Fattepur, pargana Pachotar, district Ghazipur. The Collector called for a report from Tahsildar on this application. Tahsildar submitted his report dated 5.11.1990/12.12.1990, showing that in map, area of plot 62 is carved out less than its settlement area while area of plot 60 was more than its settlement area, accordingly map is liable to be corrected. The Collector accepted the report by order dated 02.08.1991 and directed for correction of the map. Ram Krit (father of the petitioners) filed an application for recall of order dated 02.08.1991, which was allowed by the Collector, by order dated 21.12.1993. The Collector obtained a fresh report from Tahsildar, who submitted his report dated 15.01.1993, after spot inspection. The Collector, after hearing the parties, by order dated 05.08.1994 again approved report of Tahsildar dated 12.12.1990 and directed for correction of map accordingly. Ram Krit filed a revision against aforesaid order before the Commissioner, in which, interim order dated 10.08.1994 was passed. The revision is still pending. 4. In the meantime, the village was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 13.10.1990/05.11.1990. On the notification under Section 9 of the Act, Thagga filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for correction of the map of plot 62, according to order of Collector dated 02.08.1991. Initially Consolidation Officer, by order dated 30.05.2008, allowed the objection and directed for correction of the map, according to order of the Collector dated 02.08.1991 and 05.08.1994. However, this order was set aside by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 05.09.2009, in appeal filed by the petitioners and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for passing fresh order on merit, ignoring orders of the Collector, after hearing the parties. 5. However, this order was set aside by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 05.09.2009, in appeal filed by the petitioners and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for passing fresh order on merit, ignoring orders of the Collector, after hearing the parties. 5. After remand, Consolidation Officer obtained a fresh report from Tracer, who submitted his fresh report dated 21.06.2011. Tracer, in his report, also found that in map area of plot 62 is carved out, less than its settlement area while area of plot 60 was more than its settlement area, accordingly map is liable to be corrected. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 16.07.2011, directed for correction of map according to the report of Tracer dated 21.06.2011. The petitioners and respondents-6 and 7 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 933) from aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 20.01.2014 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1305) against aforesaid orders, which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 09.06.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the village was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 13.10.1990. The Collector has no jurisdiction to pass orders dated 02.08.1991 and 05.08.1994. Operation of the order of Collector was stayed in revision filed by father of the petitioners on 10.08.1994, which is still continuing. Consolidation authorities have illegally relied upon it. Report of Tracer dated 21.06.2011 has been illegally relied without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to file any objection against it or to adduce any evidence in rebuttal of it. The Consolidator, in his spot inspection report dated 24.02.2001 and 13.12.2002 found constructions and possession of the petitioners on plot 60. In case the map is corrected according to report of Tracer, then portion of plot 60, which is in possession of the petitioners, will be included in plot 62. Impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Present proceeding is for correction of the map and possession of the parties on spot would not be affected. Impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Present proceeding is for correction of the map and possession of the parties on spot would not be affected. Tracer, in his report 21.06.2011, found that in map, area of plot 62 is carved out less than its settlement area while area of plot 60 was more than its settlement area, accordingly map is liable to be corrected. He has also pointed out the mode of correction, by which area of plots 60 and 62 will become according to their settlement area in map. The petitioners have not filed any objection against the report of Tracer dated 21.06.2011, before consolidation authorities although they were appearing before Consolidation Officer nor could show any illegality in it before this Court. The orders of consolidation authorities, by which incorrect map has been corrected, are not liable to be interfered by this Court. 8. So far as the order of Collector is concerned, Consolidation Officer, based his order dated 30.05.2008, on the order of Collector. However, this order was set aside by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 25.09.2009. After remand, a fresh report was obtained by Consolidation Officer from Tracer, who submitted his report dated 21.06.2011, which has been accepted by him in his subsequent order dated 16.07.2011. Although Consolidation Officer, in this order has written that the Collector was acting as District Deputy Director of Consolidation, after notification under Section 4 of the Act and his order dated 02.08.1991 and 05.08.1994 were not without jurisdiction but he based his order on the report of Tracer dated 21.06.2011. 9. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioners that if, map is corrected according to report of Tracer, then the land of plot 60, of their possession, will go in plot 62. The petitioners has filed spot inspection report submitted by Consolidator dated 24.02.2001 and 13.12.2002. A perusal of these reports shows that house and other improvements of the petitioners are in extreme north of plot 60, while southern portion of plot 60 in the map is going in plot 62, which is in south of it. By the proposed correction, his constructions are not affected. Thus arguments in this respect is also not liable to be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.