JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 11.5.2011, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.1.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.6.2016 passed in proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the At"). The dispute raised by the petitioner is in respect of area of plot no.201. During survey area of plot nos.201/1 was found as 0.059 hectare, 201/2 was found as 0.140 hectare, 201/3 was found as 2.010 hectare, 201/4 was found as 0.115 hectare. Thus total area of these plots was found 2.410 hectare although its settlement area was recorded as 2.137 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection before Consolidation Officer for recording area of plot no.201 as 2.410 hectare according to survey report. Consolidation Officer has directed for fresh survey. When the matter came up before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 6.9.1994 remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer, for conducting a fresh survey of plot no.201 as well as survey of other surrounding plots. When the matter was taken up by Consolidation Officer, he constituted a Survey Team for survey of plots. Survey Team visited the place but it is alleged that the petitioner did not cooperate with Survey Team as such survey could not conducted in the presence of the petitioner. The matter was thereafter taken up by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 11.5.2011 held that the area of plot no.201 cannot be recorded more that its area as recorded in the last settlement record as such objection of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by order dated 24.1.2012 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.6.2016. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that although settlement area of plot no.201 was 2.137 hectare but now in CH form 23 of the petitioner its area has been less than the settlement area. In view of the controversy raised by the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to file a copy of CH Form 23. The counsel for the petitioner submits that although settlement area of plot no.201 was 2.137 hectare but now in CH form 23 of the petitioner its area has been less than the settlement area. In view of the controversy raised by the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to file a copy of CH Form 23. The petitioner filed a copy of CH Form 23 belonging to him in which plot no.201/2 area 0.140 hectare and 201/3 area 1.837 hectare was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed papers showing that area of plot no.201/1 was recorded as Nalkoop land therefore, it was excluded from consolidation operation. Similarly, some area of plot no.201 came to be recorded in the name of the wife of the petitioner. He has not filed CH Form 23of his wife to show as to what area has gone in her chak from plot no.201. Thus it is not liable to be accepted that area of plot no.201 has been reduced than its last settlement area. The consolidation authorities have directed for recording the area of plot no.201 according to its area as recorded in the last settlement record. Thus, petitioner may be entitled to get that area but there is no reason to believe that area has been reduced. The claim of the petitioner for enhancement of area cannot be accepted. It is well settled that the consolidation authorities cannot enhance the area from the area recorded in last settlement. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.