Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39304 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 440 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Sumer Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Amethi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents . 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to Khata No. 185 Gata No. 23/0.039 which was recorded in the name of Sursati, wife of Ram Sukh and after the death of Sursati, Ram Sukh was recorded as a tenure holder but the original chak was divided into two parts at different places and new Gata Number were allotted as 2-Ka and 287. It has been submitted there was a dispute with regard to the aforesaid holdings where further orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer against which Ram Sukh had filed recall application under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. During the proceedings, Ram Sukh has died on 27.12.2016 issueless and only the petitioner i.e. Ram Sumer who was the nephew of Ram Sukh had moved an application for substitution on 30.06.2022. It has been submitted that the revision was finally allowed on 30.11.2022 in favour of the revisionist but certain clerical errors remained in the order dated 30.11.2022. In the said order, Ram Sumer has been shown to be the son of Ram Sukh while in fact Ram Sumer is the son of Joku Ram and secondly that Gata No. 2-Ka has been directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner while the petitioner claims that the correct Gata Numer is 287. 3. It is submitted that against the order dated 30.11.2022, even the revision preferred before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amethi has been rejected on 25.11.2025. Considering the fact that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, notification under Section 52(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued and consequently the revisional court would not have any powers to consider and allow the revision preferred by the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, it is noticed that though the revision was filed by Ram Sukh son of Ribai who died during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings and in 2016 and was duly substituted by the petitioner. This fact has been recorded in the order dated 30.11.2022 where it is stated that the son of Jokhu Ram was Ram Sumer who was also the legal heir. But in the operative portion of the said judgment, Ram Sumer has been described as son of Ram Sukh which prima- facie is erroneous. Considering the fact that an error had crept in the order dated 30.11.2022, it was open for the petitioner to have moved an appropriate application under Section 42-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and in case the authority was of the view that the error is clerical or arithmetical, apparent on the face of record, the same could have been corrected with respect to the fact that in the meanwhile, notification under Section 52(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 had been issued. Accordingly, once the lis has been decided in favour of petitioner, he cannot be denied the benefit of the said judgment only because of the existence of a clerical error. 6. Accordingly, with regard to the prayer of the petitioner stating that his lineage has been wrongly recorded in the order dated 30.11.2022, we grant him liberty to move an appropriate application under Section 42-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the appropriate authority who, upon receiving the same, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, with expedition. 7. The petitioner is also granted liberty to move a application for correction with regard to the recording of Gata No. 2-ka only while he submits that the correct order should have been 2- ka along with Gata No. 287 which has been mutated in the impugned order dated 30.11.2022. In this regard, the authority concerned shall duly consider the claim of the petitioner and if he finds that the petitioner is entitled to Gata No. 287 along with Gata No. 2-ka, he shall pass a detailed and reasoned order with regard to the same. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench