JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. – Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel and Sri Y. N. Yadav for the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner has challenged order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.9.2012 in revision No.196 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. By this order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision on merits and confirmed the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.3.2008 as well as order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 26.2.2010. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 2. Facts of the case as transpires from the paper book and the arguments of the petitioner counsel are that the petitioner was allotted agricultural land by the land management committee which was approved on 15.1.1976 by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj. This fact is not disputed and has been admitted in the order by the Consolidation Officer. There is an interesting fact that allotment has been made in the name of Sita Ram son of Kallu at two serial No.47 and 80. The land which has been given to the petitioner in serial No.47 is 917/0-1-0, 927/0-3-0, 928/1-8-0, 974/1-0-0, total four numbers and area 2-7-0 and malguzari 15.48 on lease. This entry is not disputed by the opposite parties. However, there is another entry at serial No.80 again in the name of one Sita Ram son of Kallu of the same village on gata No. 111/1-12-0, 205/1-0-0 total 2 numbers measuring 2-12-0 malguzari 17.88 on lease. The Consolidation Officer has taken a view that in one register there cannot be two allotments to one person of the same village in the same name. 3. The petitioner in his defence before the Consolidation Officer has produced the Gram Pradhan of the village who has deposed in favour of the petitioner as well as the Registrar Kanoongo Sri Daya Ram, who has also deposed in favour of the petitioner and has testified the fact that the such patta was indeed given for approval from Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that he has taken possession only on the land mentioned in serial No.80 and has nothing to do with the land mentioned at serial No.47. Petitioner has applied for mutation but the same was rejected. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that he has taken possession only on the land mentioned in serial No.80 and has nothing to do with the land mentioned at serial No.47. Petitioner has applied for mutation but the same was rejected. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the pleading of the petitioner on the ground that the land mentioned in serial No.80 has already been re-allotted to other persons. Hence, it is not possible to mutate the name of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has forcefully argued that firstly there is no finding that patta was non-existent or forged. When the patta in favour of the petitioner is admitted then without cancellation process begin adopted by the executive authorities the Consolidation Officer did not have the right to nullify a dully allotted patta in the consolidation proceedings. Petitioner says that patta given to him was neither ever cancelled nor even a notice was ever given for its cancellation to the petitioner. Copy of the patta has been annexed with this writ petition also. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties is silent at this stage they do not deny the veracity of the patta. In such situation if there is a clerical mistake which has been committed by some revenue officials then the petitioner cannot be held guilty and punished by taking away the vested right of the petitioner. 5. The Consolidation Officer has not given any finding that the petitioner has grabbed the land or indulged in any forgery or misled by making any false statement. It is difficult to understand as to how the claim of the petitioner can be denied on the admitted facts. Once the Registrar Kanoongo has clearly deposed before the Consolidation Officer that a patta was indeed granted to him it could not have been denied by the Consolidation Officer. 6. Sri L.K. Pathak has forcefully argued that so far the possession is concerned it is limited only up to gata No. 111 as well as 205 exclusively. He has never claimed that the land mentioned at serial No.47 is in his possession. He has undertaken before this Court that neither he made any claim nor will he ever claim any right over the land mentioned at serial No.47. He has never claimed that the land mentioned at serial No.47 is in his possession. He has undertaken before this Court that neither he made any claim nor will he ever claim any right over the land mentioned at serial No.47. He says that from day one he was given patta in respect of the land mentioned in serial No.80 and he has been in possession over the same since then. This case has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation in a manner which is indicative of non-application of mind. 7. Petitioner has never been claiming two numbers at two different serial numbers. He has been claiming only one number and has been indicating that serial No.80 was correct entry and serial No.47 has nothing to do with him. If any cancellation was to be made or a revision was to be made it could have been done at serial No.47 and not at serial No.80 which the petitioner was claiming to be in his possession. The Court comes to the conclusion that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer are liable to be set aside. There is total non-application of mind vis-a-vis the record as well as evidence led by the Registrar Kanoongo and Pradhan of the Village. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.9.2012 passed by opposite party No.1 in Revision No.196, order dated 26.2.2010 passed by opposite party No.2 in Appeal No. 1060/604/09-10 under Section 11 of C.H.Act and order dated 12.3.2008 passed by opposite party No.3 in Case No.308/2008, under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, are hereby set aside. 9. The petitioner shall not be evicted from plot No.111 as well as plot No.205 to the extent of the land which is 1 bigha 12 biswa as well as 1 bigha respectively. Petitioner shall be entitled only to the tune of 2 bighas 12 biswas land in question for which mutation shall also be done in favour of the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. Petition Allowed.