JUDGMENT : Yashwant Varma, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri K. Ajit learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 10 January 2011 and 31 January 2013 in terms of which the application of the private respondents for bringing the village map in accord with the final consolidation record was initially allowed. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected. 3. It appears that after consolidation had concluded and CH Form-45 had been drawn up a dispute arose between the petitioners and private respondents with respect to the areas of plot Nos. 356, 388 and 364. The rival claims ultimately formed subject matter of consideration in a revision which was disposed of on 1 June 2007 and the mater was remanded back to the authorities to revisit the entire dispute after taking into consideration the reports dated 2 November 2002 and 19 May 2003 and after permitting parties to adduce evidence in support of their claims. Pursuant to the order of remand when proceedings were initiated again, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 20 January 2011 based on the earlier reports dated 2 November 2002 and 19 May 2003. In addition to the aforementioned two reports, the respondent No. 2 also took into consideration a report submitted by the Consolidation Tracer dated 18 May 2008 and ultimately rested his decision on the said reports to hold against the petitioners. The challenge raised by the petitioners in revision has been negatived. Both the authorities have noted and taken into consideration the fact that consolidation operations had concluded and therefore, the report of the Consolidation Tracer was the most worthy of reliance. 4. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition submitted that not only did the authorities fail to abide by the directions issued by the authority on remand, they had also committed a manifest illegality in failing to examine the Consolidation Tracer nor did they take out any proceedings to ensure that the said report was admitted in evidence in accordance with law. The submission of Sri K. Ajit in opposition was that no prejudice whatsoever stands caused to the petitioner in light of the fact that the orders did not in any manner overshadow or eclipse the record of rights. Referring to the objections preferred by the petitioners to the report of the Consolidation Tracer, Sri Ajit submitted that at no stage was it the objection of the petitioners that the area of the plots as mentioned and detailed in the final consolidation scheme stood affected. In fact Sri Ajit contended that correction in the village map was in fact to bring its position in tune with the finality accorded inter partes during the course of consolidation operation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that the report of the Consolidation Tracer dated 18 May 2008 is based upon the final consolidation scheme and the figures and areas which stand enumerated therein. The suggested changes to the village map were to bring the same in accord with the areas of the respective plots as set forth in the final consolidation scheme. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this correction in the village map would not have the effect of automatically amending or overriding the entries which stand enshrined in the record of rights. The more fundamental issue which this Court bears in mind is that it was never the case of the petitioners that the areas of the plots as they stood recorded in the record of rights stood diminished in view of the corrections carried out in the village map. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the position that in case of conflict, the record of rights would prevail. As rightly contended by Sri Ajit, the record of rights is the primary document which is drawn up on the basis of title evidenced by parties and possession of the plots in question. This record of rights has an independent existence and is never overshadowed or eclipsed by a village map. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground which warrants interference with the orders impugned. 6. Insofar as reliance placed on the judgment in Radhey and another Vs. This record of rights has an independent existence and is never overshadowed or eclipsed by a village map. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground which warrants interference with the orders impugned. 6. Insofar as reliance placed on the judgment in Radhey and another Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. And others AIR 1990 Allahabad 175 is concerned, suffice it to note that the same related to proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1952 and therefore, would have no application or bearing in respect of summary proceedings as undertaken under the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. The writ petition is dismissed.