JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The controversy in this case is regarding the mistake in preparation of the alteration chart in pursuance of the order dated 13th November, 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 2738, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to the as Act). From perusal of the order dated 13th November, 1981, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed that the petitioner Ved Prakash, chak holder No. 831 shall be allotted plots No. 1456 and 1457 which was lying in Bachat. However, in alteration chart prepared in pursuance of this order, the petitioner has been allotted plots No. 1461 and 1459. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved an application on 29th August, 1985 for correcting the aforesaid mistake. This application has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 18th November, 1985. This petition has been filed questioning the aforesaid two orders. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation though in his order has accepted that there is a mistake and it requires correction, however, he has observed that this mistake can be corrected under Sections 42-A or Sub-Section (3) of Section 48 of the Act. He has also given one more reason that as the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 13th November, 1981 on the ground that he was not heard, has been rejected, no action can be taken on the subsequent application moved by the petitioner on 29th August, 1985. 4. I have considered the controversy and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, as the mistake was apparent on the fact of the record, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have corrected the same. Under Section 42-A of the Act, only clerical or arithmetical error could be corrected. In the present case, it was not a clerical or arithmetical error, as in the alteration chart altogether new plots have been substituted than mentioned in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Such a mistake could not be termed to be clerical or arithmetical. In the present case, it was not a clerical or arithmetical error, as in the alteration chart altogether new plots have been substituted than mentioned in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Such a mistake could not be termed to be clerical or arithmetical. The petitioner in his application mentioned certain facts that plots No. 1456 and 1457 were not available for allotment as they were subject matter of some other revision, The Deputy Director of Consolidation Has not considered this aspect of the case at all. If for any reason the plots given to the petitioner by the order dated 13th November, 1981 were not available for allotment in his chak, only after hearing both the parties, a fresh allotment could have been made. Another reason assigned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for not considering this application is that the restoration application was rejected the second application was also not sustainable in law. The subsequent application moved by the petitioner for correction of the alteration chart, was based altogether, on different cause of action and should have been decided on merits as the mistake mentioned by him in his application, was found correct. 5. Sri M.D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the plots taken from his chak have been allotted in chak road, he could not get the land in view of the stay order passed by this Court and he has suffered irreparable loss. He has also submitted that in case the matter is directed to be re-heard by the court, it should be left open that his plots allotted in chak road, may be restored to him. 6. In my opinion, there is no necessity of making this observation as if the order dated 13th November, 1981 cannot be given effect on the spot, the order will be changed and a fresh order will be passed after hearing both the parties and in that case the controversy of allotment of chaks shall be decided afresh between the parties. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 28th November, 1985 passed by the respondents No. 1 is hereby, quashed and he is directed to decide the application moved by the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 28th November, 1985 passed by the respondents No. 1 is hereby, quashed and he is directed to decide the application moved by the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above. It is further directed that in case plots No. 1466 and 1457 cannot be given to the petitioner as directed by order dated 13-11-1981, the whole controversy shall be decided afresh treating the revision as restored to its original number. As the case is very old one, the respondent No. 1 shall decide the application moved by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner. There shall be no orders as to costs. 8. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week.