JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. Notice on this review application was issued by this Court while admitting the review application by its order dated 1-12-1988. According to the office report, the Respondents have been duly served with the notices of the review application. No one has, however, appeared in response to that notice. I am accordingly proceeding to dispose of the matter finally. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the review application are not in dispute. The land in question is plot No. 290 khata No. 29 area 4.65 acres, situate in Village Somai, Pargana Orai, district Jalaun. The Petitioner purchased this land under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1969 executed by one Chatur Singh, opposite party No. 3. On the basis of the sale deed the Petitioner applied for mutation. This was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 17-7-1971. The Petitioner appealed against that order before the Commissioner. While that appeal was pending, the village in question came within the purview of the consolidation operations started under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as a consequence of which the appeal abated. The Petitioner thereupon filed application for mutation before the Consolidation Officer u/s 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Chatur Singh and Gaon Sabha filed objections, against the same but the Consolidation Officer allowed the mutation application, and rejected the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha and Chatur Singh. 3. Aggrieved by that order, both the objectors filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 1-8-1974. The main ground on which the appeal was allowed was that after the transfer the Petitioner came to possess land in excess of permissible limit by 2:49 acres which was liable to vest in Gaon Sabha. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed by an order dated' 19-2-1976. The order was based on the premise that the date of acquisition of bhumidhari rights would be the date of declaration i.e. the actual grant of sanad and not the date of deposit of twenty time annual rent in pursuance of the sale deed. The order was based on the premise that the date of acquisition of bhumidhari rights would be the date of declaration i.e. the actual grant of sanad and not the date of deposit of twenty time annual rent in pursuance of the sale deed. Consequently, it was held that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and deposit of 20 times of the land revenue by the latter on 26-6-1969 would not result in the transfer of bhumidhari rights in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Against this order the Petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed summarily by this Court on 21-5-1979. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a review application on the ground that the controversy involved in the case was directly covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Bansidhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari 1971 ALJ 937. Notices were issued in the review application but none has appeared to oppose the same. 6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am clearly of the view that the dictum of the above Full Bench directly applies to the present case. This was somehow overlooked. Applying the ratio of the Full Bench. It is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a patent error of law in taking the view that the relevant date on which the Petitioner would be deemed to have acquired bhumidhari rights is the date of actual grant of sanad, that is, declaration. The correct position is that the relevant date is the date of deposit of 20 times of land revenue and not the date on which the certificate was issued. The Full Bench decision cited above should not have been ignored by the Deputy Director of Consolidation even though it was specifically cited. The Deputy Director of consolidation completely failed to appreciate the ratio of the case. The same legal error was committed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation also. The result is that both the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer, Consolidation are liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, both the review applications as well as the writ petition succeed and are allowed. The order dated 25-9-1979 dismissing the writ petition summarily is recalled. The result is that both the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer, Consolidation are liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, both the review applications as well as the writ petition succeed and are allowed. The order dated 25-9-1979 dismissing the writ petition summarily is recalled. The impugned orders dated 1-8-1974 and 19-2-1976 passed respectively by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are both quashed. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer is restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs.