JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20-8-1998, passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar Camp Haridwar at Roorkee and the judgment and order dated 4-6-1996 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar at Roorkee, Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively to the writ petition, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by Assistant Director of Consolidation and the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners, Smt. Usha Devi respondent No.7, was a big tenure holder and she was allotted chak No. 110in her original holding. This chak No.110 was subsequently divided in three parts having nos. 110, 110 Sa and 1 10Da. The petitioners purchased share of Smt. Usha Devi through sale deed dated 11-6-1992 of her chak numbered as 110, area 01 bigha, 13 Biswas and 19 Biswansis and at the time of above purchase consolidation had been finalised and CH form-45 had been prepared, over which Smt. Usha Devi vender of the petitioners was recorded a tenure holder of chak No. 1 10-Aa. This Chak No. 1 10-Aa became new plot No. 115 after the close of consolidation and after issuance of notification U/S 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. On the basis of the sale deed dated 11-6-1992 the mutation was made in the revenue record by Naib Tehsildar of the area. 3. The dispute arose when after the lapse of approximate five years, the respondents 4,5 and 6 preferred an appeal against the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23-12-1990, which was passed by way of compromise in favour of respondents 4 to 6 that on new plot No. 115 name of Smt. Usha Devi has wrongly been entered and the names of respondents 4 to 6 should have been entered. The appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the SOC and the appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 4-6-1996 and the order dated 23-12-1990 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside and it was directed to enter the names of respondents 4 to 6 on the land of petitioners on new chak No. 115 on the basis of sale deed dated 7-9-90. Aggrieved further by the order of SOC the petitioners preferred revision before the respondent No.1 Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, Camp Haridwar at Roorkee. The respondent No.1 without considering this aspect that plot No. 115 was not in existence at the time when the compromise was made before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, between the respondents 4 to 6 and 7. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 4. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the SOC as well as the revisional Court have not considered this aspect of the matter that the sale deed which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the counter affidavit, on the basis of which compromise was made, whereby plot Nos. 358 area 0-0-12, 361 area 1-5-0, 362 area, 0-2-0, 393 area 0-6-15, 395 area 0-0-1, total area 01 bigha, 14 biswas and 8 biswansis of revenue village Khatki Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee have been purchased. 5. Along with counter affidavit, comparative table of old and new numbers i.e. CH 41 has also been annexed as Annexure No.9 and it indicates that new numbers which were allotted in place of Plot Nos. 358, 361, 362, 395 is not plot No. 115, rather the new numbers of above plots have been allotted 116, 117 and 118. The SOC loses sight of this fact that the number which has been purchase by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 from respondent No.7 on which basis mutation was made by way of compromise in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, the new numbers which have been claimed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, plot No.115 has not been carved out from those numbers. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 at the most claim that there is some clerical mistake in mentioning plot numbers in CH-41. But in the case at hand no such type of mistake appears in the revenue record. 4 to 6, plot No.115 has not been carved out from those numbers. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 at the most claim that there is some clerical mistake in mentioning plot numbers in CH-41. But in the case at hand no such type of mistake appears in the revenue record. The learned SOC gave a finding that if there is any mistake on the part of court the parties should not suffer. The finding of SOC is totally a perverse finding since then the new numbers were not in existence and old numbers were in existence. The finding was given regarding old numbers whether the land purchased by respondents 4 to 6 has been entered rightly or not and no clerical mistake has crept in the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The learned Assistant Director of Consolidation only recorded a finding that after issuance of notification U/S 52 of the Act, if there is any correction that can be corrected by consolidation authorities. So far as the maintainability of appeal is concerned, the order was passed U/S 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act by way of compromise and only appeal lies U/S 11 against the order which has been passed U/S 9-A of the Act. Therefore, against the order passed by SOC at the most the revision can be maintained but the question of maintainability of appeal has also been left whether after the close of consolidation the appeal or the revision would lie, but without entering in to this controversy since both the orders are perverse and plot Nos. 358, 361, 362, 392, 395 which were purchased by respondents 4 to 6 have not been allotted new number 115 therefore in any case the names of respondents 4 to 6 cannot be entered on new number 115 which has been purchased by the petitioners from the respondent No.7 by a separate sale deed. The comparative table which has been filed by the respondents indicates the new numbers of these plots are 116, 117 and 118 as has been mentioned above. 6. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The Impugned judgment and orders dated 20-8-1998 and 4-6-1996 Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively to the writ petition are set aside.