Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.:- Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that some factual mistakes have crept in the judgment which requires correction. If these mistakes will remain in the judgment the revisionist would not derive any benefit of the judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 3. The factual mistakes have to be corrected. Let the order rendered by this Court on 24.5.2010 be read as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Nalini Kumar Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority.” 4. Through this revision under section 115 C.P.C., an interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad trial court by which an interim application has been dismissed has been challenged. The revisionist sought rejection of the written statement of the respondent and requested the Court to provide that the directions issued by the Board of Revenue and the State Government are binding on the concerned authorities of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and other local bodies. Compliance of Board of Revenue's order and Government Order dated 13.6.2009, 12.4.2010 in respect of sanctioning the map plan, submitted to the Development Authority has also been sought. The other factual and legal aspects were also canvassed before the Court. The revisionist is the owner of plot no.88/1 area 1-14-0 situated in villages Hasanpur, Bhovapur, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad (Vaishali-1) vide sale deed dated 1.3.2001. The plot no.88/1 has not been acquired by the G.D.A. as is evident from the modification under Section 4 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act filed as annexure 1. Perusal of notification would so that plot no.88/2 area 1-16-0 has been acquired. The area of plot no.88/2 has been worngly mentioned as 1-16-0. It is infact 0-2-0 only. As is evident from the order dated 26.4.2002 of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition( Irrigation Ghaziabad (annexure 2). The anomaly is that the plot which has been acquired has an area of 0-2-0 bighas whereas the plot which belongs to the revisionist is 0-14-0 bighas. The G.D.A. is claiming that an area of 1-16-0 of plot no.88/2 has been acquired whereas this is not the position as is evident from the documents filed by the revisionist. The Board of Revenue had set at rest the above anomaly by its order dated 13.6.2009. 5. The G.D.A. is claiming that an area of 1-16-0 of plot no.88/2 has been acquired whereas this is not the position as is evident from the documents filed by the revisionist. The Board of Revenue had set at rest the above anomaly by its order dated 13.6.2009. 5. The revisionist filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and sanctioning of map. He has also approached the Board of Revenue and the State Government. The Board of Revenue had passed a specific detailed order dated 13.6.2009 in favour of the applicant. The State Government, i.e., Secretary Avas, Lucknow had also issued detailed directions to the local body, G.D.A. Etc. vide order dated 12.4.2010 for sanctioning the map submitted by the land owner for commercial or other purpose. 6. The court below has rejected the application 88C of the revisionist, hence giving cause of action to the applicant to file the present revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 8. There are two Government Orders available on record which were issued by the Board of Revenue U.P. on 13.6.2009 and the State Government on 12.4.2010. This order is to be given due regard. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 13.6.2009 and State Government's order dated 12.4.2010 are specific and clear. The directions contained in these orders have to be complied with by the concerned local body ,i.e., Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and all the concerned authorities and parties. As per provisions contained in section 41 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, it is incumbent upon the authority or Vice Chairman of the Development Authority to carry out the directions issued by the State Government. 9. The above said Board of Revenue's order and Government Order have already been considered and dealt with by this Court in its judgment and order dated 20.5.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 263 of 2010- Lajja Ram & others Vs. Man Singh since deceased and others. 10. In view of the above quoted statutory provisions and the directions contained in the Government Order dated 12.4.2010, the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority is directed to ensure compliance of the directions contained in the letter sent by the Board of Revenue on 13.6.2009 and the Govt. vide G.O. dated 12.4.2010. Man Singh since deceased and others. 10. In view of the above quoted statutory provisions and the directions contained in the Government Order dated 12.4.2010, the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority is directed to ensure compliance of the directions contained in the letter sent by the Board of Revenue on 13.6.2009 and the Govt. vide G.O. dated 12.4.2010. The directions are explicit and clear and have to be complied with by all the concerned authorities including the respondents herein. Since the issues raised are legal issues and interpretation of the aforesaid provisions has been sought for, the revision deserves to be allowed. The concerned authorities including respondents, trial court shall take notice of the above and ensure compliance of the aforesaid directions contained in the above order dated 13.6.2009 issued by the Board of Revenue, U.P. and State Government in its Government Order dated 12.4.2010. The revision is allowed. All the necessary consequences shall follow. 11. Accordingly, the application is allowed.