The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timing and jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 and the implications of unimpleaded parties in civil suits.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant petition a challenge is made to Annexure P-21. Annexure P-21 has been drawn by the Commissioner Division Rohtak, Rohtak, through his exercising the powers vested in him, under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1948”).

2. Uncontrovertedly the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, was the successful auction purchaser of lands, thus owned by the Central Government. The land (supra), is comprised in Khasra No.9157/2010.

3. The parties are not disputing the validity of the issuance of sale certificate bearing No.2900, dated 25.02.1983, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioner.

4. The consolidation operations in the Mohal concerned, became concluded in the year 1971, but the sale certificate (supra), became issued subsequent thereto, inasmuch as, it became issued, on 25.02.1983. Therefore, the consolidation officer omitted to distribute, but in terms of the sale certificate, thus issued subsequent to the conclusion of the consolidation operations of the Mohal concerned, rather lands to the predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioner. The Authority constituted under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, became well empowered to, in the event of the Consolidation Officer, in the finalized consolidation scheme, earlier omitting to revere the sale certificate (supra), despite the same becoming adduced, before him, who may if there was no dispute vis-a-vis the authenticity of the sale certificate (supra), to construe the slighting of sale certificate (supra), by the Consolidation Officer concerned, to be a typographical error, and, may have through the jurisdiction vested, under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 thus taken to undo or cure the said typographical error or a sheer inadvertence, thus through his making an order of remand to the Consolidation Officer, for thereby ensuring that the entitlement of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, in the estate concerned, rather is not untenably overlooked.

5. However, as stated (supra), since the sale certificate was issued subsequent to the conclusion of consolidation operations, thus in the Mohal concerned. Therefore, the jurisdiction vested under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, in the Commissioner concerned, rather was not exercisable, as the said sale certificate, was never in existence at the relevant time nor when thereby it could be adduced by the concerned, before the Consolidation Officer concerned, nor also in the said sale certificate becoming purportedly overlooked, thus there was any occasion for thereby any clerical error becoming committed by the Consolidation Officer concerned, for thus its becoming cured or remedied thus through a petition, becoming cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.

6. Therefore, the declining order as made through the drawing of Annexure P-21 rather was a validly made order.

7. If the sale certificate did have an aura of validity, thereby the empowered Revenue Officer concerned, other than the officers, in the Consolidation department concerned, thus could be motioned, thus for an order attesting mutation in terms of the sale certificate becoming recorded, and, also corresponding entries being made in the jamabandis.

8. It appears that the said motion was not drawn at the instance of the petitioner rather the petitioner recoursed an untenable remedy, which resulted in the drawing of the impugned order, which for reasons (supra), is both apt and legally sound.

9. Moreover, even if the effect of the above, is that, though allotment(s) have been made to the estate holders concerned, in the consolidation scheme, which became prepared prior to the issuance of sale certificate (supra), and, which may ultimately effect, the entitlements as ensuing to the petitioner, from the sale certificate concerned. Consequently, the estate holders concerned, who in derogation of the rig