JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.6.2016, as corrected by order dated 9.6.2016. Ram Sewak son of Kedar Nath and Lala Ram son of Gabbar Lal were joint owners of plot no.2281, area 0.90 acre and plot no.2411, area 0.24 acre. In basic consolidation record, these plots were jointly recorded in the names of Ram Sewak and Lala Ram in khata no.302. Lala Ram executed a sale deed in favour of Jagdish Prasad. On the basis of sale deed an objection was filed by Jagdish Prasad before Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 19.9.1969 directed for recording the name of Jagdish Prasad over plot no.2281, area 0.24 acre. However, while preparing the revised consolidation record in CH Form 11 khata no.311 came to be recorded in the name of Rajendra Prasad and others along with Ram sewak. In this khata plot no.2281, area 0.24 acre was recorded. Khata no.312 was jointly recorded in the names of Ram Sewak and Lala Ram. In this plot area of plot nos.2281, area 0.66 acre and 2411 area 0.24 acre was recorded. As the name of Ram Sewak was also recorded in khata no.311, therefore, an application was filed by the respondents for deleting his name from khata no.311. The matter came before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 16.2.2016 found that as Lala Ram had sold an area of 0.24 acre of plot no.2281 to Jagdish Prasad and in pursuance of the sale deed the name of Jagdish Prasad was directed to be mutated by order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.9.1969 over the aforesaid area, as such name of Ram Sewak was wrongly recorded over an area of 0.24 acre in khata no.311 of CH Form 11. Accordingly, entry was directed to be corrected. There was some discrepancies which were later on corrected by order dated 9.6.2016. Hence, this petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. Accordingly, entry was directed to be corrected. There was some discrepancies which were later on corrected by order dated 9.6.2016. Hence, this petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. A perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer filed along with short counter affidavit shows that the name of Jagdish Prasad was directed to be recorded by order of Consolidation Officer on the basis of sale deed executed by Lala Ram of plot no.2281. While preparing revised consolidation record under Section 10 of the Act an area of 0.24 acre of plot no.2281 was recorded in khata no.311. Although the name of Jagdish Prasad was directed to be recorded by the order of Consolidation Officer but the name of Ram Sewak was wrongly recorded in khata no.311. This entry has been corrected by Deputy Director of Consolidation and no interference is required by this Court. However, it is clarified that so far as khata no.312 is concerned, in this khata plot no.2281 area 0.66 acre of 2411, area 0.24 acre were recorded. Thus it is clarified that area, 0.24 acre of plot no.2281 is liable to be excluded from the share of Lala Ram while deciding 1/2 share of Ram Sewak in this khata no.312. If the parties so advised, they may get their shares partitioned in a separate proceeding. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.