JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.1, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference No.314 of 2014-15. 3. By this order, a reference forwarded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been accepted. 4. The dispute between the parties is regarding the area on the spot, of plots that have been allotted to them. The reference itself was forwarded to give effect to the orders dated 03.01.2016, 30.04.2003, 21.12.2004 and 28.12.2004 passed by the Consolidation Office in proceedings, under Section 9- A(2) of the Act. These orders were passed in objection Nos. 423, 129, 255 and 463 respectively and dispute in these objections pertained to plot nos. 126, 203, 205 and 207. 5. The matter had earlier come up before this Court by means of writ petition No.63595 of 2013. This writ petition had also been filed by the petitioner in the instant petition. This writ petition, filed in the year 2013, was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2013. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded back with the following directions - "The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall get the measurement of Sector 12 also and correct the excess area of various chak holder in whose chak excess area is found." 6. In pursuance of the directions contained in the aforesaid order of remand, it appears that fresh measurements were carried out on the spot and a report in this regard was submitted. This report pertains to the area of Sector 12. 7. It was reported that upon measurement, the total area of Sector 12 was found to be 1.708 Hectare while according to the revenue records, the area should have been only 1.688 Hectare. 8. Once the report was made, an objection was filed by the petitioner thereto. A copy of the said objection is available on record as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition and I have perused the same. It consists of ten paragraphs. However, in most of the paragraphs, objections have been raised regarding chak roads and regarding reservation of land for abadi etc. A copy of the said objection is available on record as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition and I have perused the same. It consists of ten paragraphs. However, in most of the paragraphs, objections have been raised regarding chak roads and regarding reservation of land for abadi etc. These objections in my considered opinion are wholly baseless and nothing but an attempt to confound the issue. These objections have no co-relation to the dispute which was with regard to the area of plots on the spot. The only points of any consequence are that the measurements were carried out without notice or information to the petitioner and in her absence. 9. The other objection is that both sectors No.9 and 12 should have been measured together and not separately. In so far as this objection is concerned, in my considered opinion, the same is devoid of substance. There was no direction by the writ court in the order of remand requiring such a measurement. In fact, the only direction was that the area of Sector 12 be measured and this is precisely what has been done. 10. The writ petition contains no averment that no notice were issued or no information was given to the petitioner before the measurement was carried out. In the absence of any such categorical averment in the writ petition, even this contention, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted. 11. Nothing besides the above, which may be of any consequence, has been pointed out. 12. The submission that survey of only Sector 12 was wrongly conducted and that this measurement made is contrary to the directions issued by the Court in its order of remand, has been raised only to be rejected. 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation relying on the aforesaid report, found that despite inclusion of the excess area of Sector 12 in the chak of the respondent in Sector 9, he would still be entitled to further 0.142 Hectare of land. Since this land was not available on the spot, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed that the chaks of the parties be reduced on a pro-rata basis. It is in this context that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer have been modified. 14. Since this land was not available on the spot, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed that the chaks of the parties be reduced on a pro-rata basis. It is in this context that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer have been modified. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is, that in a reference, an order passed in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) could not have been modified and it could have been modified only in an appeal. Even this contention lacks substance. 15. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising powers under Section 48 is empowered to pass appropriate orders after examining the record of the proceedings before the subordinate consolidation authorities. In case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the only course open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation would have been to pass an order issuing directions to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to modify the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, accordingly. 16. It is relevant to point out that in view of the 3rd proviso to Section 48, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is empowered to appreciate the evidence on record and thereafter pass appropriate orders. 17. The fact of the matter is that the area determined in the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, was found to be non-existant on the spot. It is in these circumstances that the area of the plots have been ordered to be reduced on a prorata basis so as to ensure that no single tenure holder is put to a loss and the shortage or lack of land on the spot, is suffered equally by the persons having their holdings in that area. 18. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, the order impugned dated 16.05.2015 has done substantial justice between the parties. Since the objections of the petitioner against this order have already repelled in the earlier part in this order, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.