Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 17.08.1982 (Annexure P-4), dated 12.9.1983 (Annexure P-5), dated 26.05.1992 (Annexure P-6), and, dated 31.01.1996 (Annexure P-8).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the consolidation proceedings in the revenue estate of village Zira, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, were concluded before the year 1960. Therefore, entitlement of all the right holders were assessed in the Naksha Hakdarwar and thereafter they were allotted lands as per the valuation of their shares. Resultantly, as such the finalized consolidation scheme became drawn, and, also in terms of Section 22 of the Act, the record of rights became updated.

3. That some lands had fallen to the share of the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner No.1, therebys he came in the category of big land owner and in view of the provisions of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), area measuring about 29 Standard Acres 8 ¾ units was declared surplus by the Government, and, the land was further utilized as per the Rules.

4. That one Gurbax Rai (father of private respondents), was the owner of 2 Kanal and 16 Marlas as per Lari No.918, 919, and in Patti Machian his share came to be around 1 Marla only, and, the same was given to him at the time of partition of the said Khata.

5. That one Jagdish Chander son of Manohar Lal along with his brother filed an application (Annexure P-1) under Section 42 of the Act, whereby they pleaded that by partitioning of Shamlat Deh Khewat rather loss has been caused to them and lesser area has been allotted to them, than their entitlement, thus therebys allotments be made rather in terms of their possession. Similar application was moved by one Raja Devi and, both these applications were treated as petitions No.81 and 196 and were disposed of vide common order rendered on 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) by the then Additional Director, Consolidation, and, it was ordered that the scheme be amended and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for necessary action.

6. That the said Jagdish Chander again moved an application under Section 42 of the Act, before the Additional Director, Consolidation, with a prayer that the order dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) be implemented. The said application was disposed of, on 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3), whereby it was ordered that it is not possible to implement the said order without disturbing the whole village and the said Jagdish Chander can be compensated out of the Bachat land which has been wrongly allotted in the name of Municipal Committee. Resultantly, the case was sent to the Consolidation Officer for necessary action.

7. In consequent thereto, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.3.1979, wherein it was ordered that the land be allotted to Shri. Jagdish Chander and Raja Devi etc. out of the Municipal Committee's land. Resultantly, mutation No.9809 was sanctioned in this regard.

8. Subsequently, one Gurbax Rai (father of private respondents) filed an application under Section 42 of the Act in the year 1981, before the Additional Director, Consolidation, with a prayer that the order dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) as amended vide order dated 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3) has not been implemented, and, the same be ordered to be implemented. In the said application only State was impleaded as a party. Vide order dated 17.08.1982 (Annexure P-4), the Additional Director, Consolidation without calling any of the right holders and also without looking into the facts, that both these orders have already stood implemented, remanded the lis to the Consolidation Officer.

9. The said Gurbax Singh was not a party in the earlier order, and no relief was given to him vide orders dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3), but these orders were passed at the instance of