The authority under the East Punjab Holdings Act can only rectify clerical errors, and claims of encroachment require valid demarcation to be legally upheld.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

Sukhdev Singh and Gurmel Singh sons of Chhota Singh @ Gurbachan Singh, residents of village Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur, instituted against Gram Panchayat village Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur, through its Sarpanch, a petition bearing Missal No.134 of 1994 before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Mohali. The said Missal was constituted under the provisions of Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act of 1948').

2. Through the said petition, the petitioners therein claimed, that on the fields of the site concerned, there was a physical shortfall of 1 kanal, thus, from the khatoni pamaish or khatoni istemal as became prepared by the Consolidation Officer concerned. Resultantly, since there was an inter se discrepancy inter se the physical measurements made in respect of the disputed lands, rather with reflections made in the above documents, as such, the said physical deficiency was asked to be cured through measurements becoming carried out, at the instance of an empowered reviewing officer concerned. Therefore, it appears that the dispute supra as such was not related to the curing or reviewing of any arithmetical mistake or clerical error which occurred in the record of rights but the said dispute related to, despite the petitioners in the said Missal, becoming reflected in the record of rights, to be owning a specific portion of land, in the relevant killa number, yet on the spot, but after the petitioners purportedly holding measurements thereof, thus the said measurements revealing that on the site of the disputed lands, the area of the lands, being lesser than the ones as became allotted to them in the finalized consolidation scheme, or was lesser than the one which was reflected respectively in the khatoni pamaish and in the finalized scheme istemal.

3. On the said Missal Annexure R-3/2 was made, whereby the Additional Director, Consolidation, without delving into or making a prima facie discussion about the validity of the exercising of jurisdiction by him, on the said petition, imperatively qua the claim raised in the petition relating to the undoing of any clerical or arithmetical error, as occurred in the record of rights, rather only proceeded to make a simplicitor order of remand to the Consolidation Officer, on the ground that the said lis is to be decided at his level in the presence of the parties. As such, through Annexure R-3/2, the Additional Director, Consolidation, appears to have found that the dispute as such related merely to land lesser than the one which became allotted to the petitioners through the documents supra, rather existed at the site concerned, and as such, he construed that the said claim raised by the petitioners in the said Missal was required to be decided by the Consolidation Officer concerned.

4. In the wake of the above non-making of any effective adjudication on the merits of the lis, therebys the non-making of any challenge theretos, thus, does not yet estop the present petitioner to yet make a challenge respectively to the impugned Annexures P-1 and P-2.

5. The learned counsels appearing today before this Court, do not raise any contest that there was any error, as such, in the record of rights which became updated by the Consolidation Officer concerned, nor do they wrangle over the further fact that the jurisdiction to be exercised by the authority contemplated under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, is permissibly exercisable but only for the undoings of any arithmetical or clerical error, which occurs in the record of rights, especially when the preparation of the record of rights, is in complete dis-concurrence with the scheme istemal, naksha haqdarwar and khatoni pamaish. If so, the only contest which remains to be rested relates to the validity of the concurrently made impugned orders Annexure P-1 and