JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amethi, District-Amethi in Revision No. 354 filed by the respondent No. 3/Sushila Devi w/o of Rajpati under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1953"), whereby, a challenge was made to the order dated 10.04.2018, by which the Consolidation Officer concerned allowed the application filed under Section 42 of the Act of 1953. 3. It is to be noted that vide order dated 10.04.2018, the Consolidation Officer concerned recorded the Gata No. 233M area 0.063 hectare in Khata No. 190 situated at Village-Kanu, Pargana and Tehsil-Amethi, District-Amethi in favour of Ram Harakh, father of the petitioners, which in the settlement year was indicated as 'Matrook' in Khata No. 299. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2018, the respondent No. 3 filed a Revision along with an application for condonation of delay on 18.01.2019. After condoning the delay, the Revisional Authority interfered in the order dated 10.04.2018 vide its order dated 08.12.2022, in issue, in this petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.12.2022 on reproduction reads as under:- - Section 42- A. Correction of Clerical of Arithmetical Errors-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfide that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of his Act, he shall, either on his own motion, or on the application of any person interested, correct the same. Correction of Clerical or Arithmetical Errors 9A. Disposal of Cases relating to Claims to Land and Partition of Joint Holding. 9A (2) ( - All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating ti valuation of trees, well or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefor, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. 11-A. Bar on objection. 11-A. Bar on objection. No question in respect of-Claims to land, Partition of joint holding, and Valuation of plots, tree, well and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or their improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10, relating to Consolidation area, (Which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that Section), but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceedings. 48. Revision and reference. (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings any may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. 5. It is settled principle of law that under Section 42 of the Act of 1953, the Authority concerned can only correct the clerical or arithmetical errors and cannot review or rewrite the final order. It is also settled principle of law that after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953, any application for correction of record would be maintainable only before the Revenue Authorities concerned. It is in view of principle of functus officio. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment dated 24.01.2019 of this Court passed in Writ-B No. 89 of 2019 (Harihar and Ors. v. Chief Revenue Officer and Ors.). It is in view of principle of functus officio. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment dated 24.01.2019 of this Court passed in Writ-B No. 89 of 2019 (Harihar and Ors. v. Chief Revenue Officer and Ors.). The relevant portion of the order dated 24.01.2019 on reproduction reads as under:- "In my considered opinion, for the purposes of deciding the controversy involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to refer to Sub-section 3 of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is quoted below - "Section 27(3) After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of map, field-book and record-of-rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section(1) and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply." The aforequoted provision is absolutely categorical and provides that once the consolidation operations have been to be closed, any correction in the revenue record is to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Land Revenue Act. As on date, the U.P. Land Revenue Act stands repealed and therefore, in my considered opinion, any correction in the revenue records, which might be necessary will have to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. In so far as, the submission made by counsel for the respondents and reliance upon the decision of Ramveer Kashyap (supra) is concerned, it would be relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court in Gafoor v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow and others, 1979, RD 76 has held that the provisions of Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, cannot be invoked once the consolidation operations have been closed by issuing a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. Although, the Judgements cited by counsel for the petitioner are all rendered by a Single Judge but in so far as, the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench in Gafoor v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow is concerned, the same is by a Division Bench and is binding upon this Court and for this reason, counsel for the respondent is not entitled to any benefit of the Judgement in the case of Ramveer Kashyap, which is by a Single Judge." 6. In the instant case, the Consolidation Authority concerned has exercised its power under Section 42 of the Act of 1953 after notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 that too with regard to entry in relation to which the father of the petitioners was having an option to file an objection under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 which was not filed. Moreover, vide order dated 10.04.2018, the Consolidation Authority concerned, in exercise of power under Section 42 of the Act of 1953 that too after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953, has not corrected the clerical or arithmetical errors rather he changed the nature of the plot, in issue, as the initial entry related to said Gata was 'Matrook' and after the order dated 10.04.2018, it was included in the holding of the father of petitioners, which was not permissible in exercise of power vested under Section 42 of the Act of 1953. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 is justified and is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merits in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.