JUDGMENT G.S. Tewari, Member - This review application was filed against the Judgment and decree dated 22-8-1974 by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 49 of 1970-71 Saharanpur on the ground that the dismissal of the second appeal on the ground of non-identifiability of the land in dispute, constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record and also treating this question as one of fact was again an error apparent on the record. 2. During the pendency of the review petition, on 4-9-1981 it was pointed out by the opposite party that Multan was dead. However, the substitution application was filed on 4-1-1982. The opposite party contended that the review application had abated for non-substitution of heirs of the opposite party. The applicant has also given an explanation in the application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the death of Multan occurred on 3rd or 4th December 1974. The main explanation is that Jaimal one of the applicants who was doing Palrvi of the case being old and uneducated person was under the bona fide impression that he substitution application shall be moved by the opposite party. The learned counsel has argued that ignorance of law is sufficient ground for condonation of delay and under the similar circumstances the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 29-7-1982 condoned the delay in moving the similar substitution application in second appeal no. 207 of 1974. A copy of the order has been filed. 3. The opposite parties have not been able to establish that the applicants knowingly and intentionally omitted to file the substitution application. The delay is there but we find that we have no reason to differ from the course adopted under the similar circumstances by the Hon'ble High Court. The explanation is accepted and the delay is condoned and the substitution application is allowed as prayed. 4. As regards the review application, the learned counsel for the applicants has argued that merely the fact that the boundaries had been broken or washed away by water on the spot does not make the plot unidentifiable. He argued that since these were full khata plots shown in the settlement map, there was no question of un-identifiability. Even though parts of these plots had been occupied by different persons. In support, he cited rulings reported in 1968 R.D. 50 (HC) and 1966 R.D. 267 (HC). He argued that since these were full khata plots shown in the settlement map, there was no question of un-identifiability. Even though parts of these plots had been occupied by different persons. In support, he cited rulings reported in 1968 R.D. 50 (HC) and 1966 R.D. 267 (HC). the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner not only on the point of non-identifiability but also for discrepancy in the period of possession the trespassers over the land in dispute. 5. We have considered various aspects and facts and find that for this review application, the question of possession is not material. The alleged error consist of presumption of unidentifiability on the spot just because identity of the plot was not feasible on the spot. The ruling in Kapildeo Rai v. Har Narain Ahir, 1965 R.D. 50 makes it clear that identifiability of land does not depend on the existing or demolished or washed out boundaries but on the possibility of boundary being fixed correctly with reference to the settlement map d the land marks, it is useful to reproduce below the relevant part of this ruling : "All that is necessary is that the land in dispute should be identifiable with reference to its physical feature, land marks or by measurements. Very often old marks are obliterated and old boundaries washed away by the fluvial action of a river even when a land remains on the same side of the river. Can it be said in such cases that the land has become unidentifiable ? Measurements and fixation of boundaries in such case will certainly present difficulty but the difficulty can be no justification for regarding the land as unidentifiable. A plot of land belonging to a person may have been split up into several portions and Included in different plots of land belonging to some other person or persons but it cannot on that account be said that the plot does not retain its identity. A plot of land belonging to a person may have been split up into several portions and Included in different plots of land belonging to some other person or persons but it cannot on that account be said that the plot does not retain its identity. It may have lost its identity in the sense that it does not bear its old shape but if physical identify can be established by measurements or otherwise a change of the above description cannot at all matter ?" In 1968 RD 267, it was held that where relief was granted in respect of major portion of the plot in dispute and not whole, the question of identifiability can be determined in the execution department, In fact, the same reasoning was taken by the learned trial court in respect of the objection by the other party that the land was not identifiable and it held that the question of identifiability could be looked into in the execution proceeding. No doubt, while deciding issue number 2, the learned trial court should have clearly held that the land was identifiable. In the instant case, it is not a part or major part of the plot in dispute but the whole plot is in dispute. The earlier ruling quoted above fully applies to the present case and we are definite in our opinion that with the assistance of the settlement map, land marks and proper measurements, there should be no difficulty in re-fixation of the boundaries and so the land cannot be held to be unidentifiable. 6. As seen above it is not a question of fact but of law and procedure that a particular land should be considered identifiable or unidentifiable. We must make it clear that there is distinction between identifiability and identity. No doubt, identifiability was confused with identity and this causes the error apparent on the face of the record. In the circumstances, we find that the review petition must be allowed and the judgment and decree of the Board dated 22-8-1974 needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1974 is set aside. The second appeal shall now be heard and disposed of by the Member having jurisdiction.