JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - It is an unfortunate case where despite agreement between parties to resolve their dispute due to inaccuracy in two sale deeds one executed in favour of petitioners and another opposite party they have been litigating and for few decimals of land petitioner had to run twice to this court. It has been found that plot no 1231 had area, 70 decimals. Out of it, `36 was sold to petitioner on 8th September, 1957. It is obvious that sale in favour of opposite party was in excess The vendor could have transferred only 34 as he had no title to transfer what he had already transferred earlier in favour of petitioners. This gave rise to dispute which was resolved and a registered agreement was executed between parties in November 1960. Opposite party had purchased plot no. 1230 as well. It was agreed that petitioners shall have their, 38 that is 11 Biswas from plot no. 1231 and 1230 in the western side. And the remaining area of 1 Bigha 13 Biswa shall be recorded in name of opposite party. 2. Thus came to an end the controversy, set in motion by mistake of vendor bet ween parties amicably. Soon thereafter the village appears to have been notified u/s 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which provided an opportunity to opposite party to go back on agreement and claim, 18 on strength of sale deed. Objection was filed u/s 9 claiming that petitioners were entitled to only, 18 in plot no. 1231. It was dismissed and the order was maintained in appeal. No further revision was filed. And the order became final. Having failed in Section 9 proceedings one of the opposite parties filed an application under Section 42-A of C.H. Act claiming that entry of petitioners name over, 36 was clerical mistake which should be corrected. This objection was also rejected. Appeal against this order also failed. But due to certain observations another opposite part/tiled second application under Section 42-A which was allowed by Consolidation Officer Revision of petitioners (sic). Then they came to this court. The order was quashed and Deputy Director was directed to decide the revision afresh. He however remanded the case to Consolidation Officer who upheld opposite party's objection. The order was maintained by revising authority. And the petitioners approached this court for second time. 3. Then they came to this court. The order was quashed and Deputy Director was directed to decide the revision afresh. He however remanded the case to Consolidation Officer who upheld opposite party's objection. The order was maintained by revising authority. And the petitioners approached this court for second time. 3. The revising authority by a queer reasoning upheld the order of Consolidation Officer allowing opposite party's objection. According to him as in the agreement of 1960 Petitioners agreed only for 18 in plot no. 1231 and only this much area was recorded in basic year records petitioners were entitled to only this much. One has to admire the reasoning. Firstly the entire proceedings appear to be without jurisdiction. Once title proceedings became final the application u/s 42-A was not maintainable. If it was maintainable then only one view could be possible that it was frivolous and misconceived as there was no arithmetical or clerical error in the records. It the sale deeds are taken into account then sale deed in favour of petitioners being earlier in point of time and there being no challenge to its validity the petitioners were entitled to 36 from 12.31. Subsequently sale deed in favour of opposite party to the extent it was in excess of area which could have been transferred was invalid it was probably due to this reason that opposite parties agreed in 1960 to compensate petitioners from plot no. 1230. How could the opposite party back out of it. Whatever view is taken the order of consolidation authorities cannot be maintained. 4. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer are quashed, I he Consolidation Officer further directed to record the name of petitioners over 11 Biswas i.e., 36 of plot nos. 1230 and 1231 in accordance with registered agreement and opposite parties no. 1 to 4 on 1 bigha 13 Biswa. As counsel for opposite party was fair in his arguments there shall be no order as to costs.