The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and does not extend to adjudicating title disputes over shamlat deh lands.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the concurrently made orders, enclosed in Annexures P-3 to P-6.

2. In a suit bearing No. 8/DC of 1999-2000, instituted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Gharaunda, against the defendants thereins, claiming therebys the rendition of a declaratory decree vis-a-vis the disputed lands, thus the said espoused decree became assigned to the plaintiff-BDPO concerned, through an order made thereons, on 20.2.2002 (Annexure P-3). In the said suit became arrayed, thus as the respondents, apart from the State of Haryana, The Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh, The Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, The Tehsilidar, Consolidation, Karnal, The Tehsildar, Revenue, and, also the private respondents, one of whom was the petitioner-Bishan Singh (since deceased). The said suit was primarily resisted by the private respondents, on the premise that respectively through Annexure P-1, and, Annexure P-2, as became drawn by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948'), their entitlement to the suit land became impliedly accepted, and, thereby the said implied acceptance of the entitlement over the disputed lands of the private respondents, rather deprived the plaintiff to espouse for the assigning of the declaratory decree rather against them. It was also contended, that with the said annexures rather making an implied conferment of title, upon the private respondents vis-a-vis the suit land, which was also the subject matter of the suit (supra), instituted by the BDPO concerned, thereby they were binding upon the plaintiff. Resultantly, the assigning of a declaratory decree to the BDPO concerned, through the making of Annexure P-3, is a flawed or an erroneously made declaration vis-a-vis the plaintiff.

3. Being aggrieved from the order (supra), as enclosed in Annexure P-3, the petitioner Bishan Singh (since deceased) filed there against an appeal bearing No. 96 of 22.3.2022, before the statutory appellate authority concerned, appeal whereof became dismissed through (Anneuxre P-4). The aggrieved therefrom the petitioner Bishan Singh (since deceased) preferred there against a revision petition, before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, who through (Annexure P-5), dismissed the said revision petition.

4. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above ground, as raised by the present petitioner in his defence, to the plaintiff's suit, is completely rudderless, and, is required to be rejected, as aptly done through the impugned annexures.

5. The reason for making the above inference emanates from the factum, that on the declaratory suit (supra), the learned Collector concerned, on the contentious pleadings of the litigants concerned, thus formulated the hereinafter extracted issues.

"1. Whether the suit property had rightly vested in Gram Panchayat and that whether the defendants No. 6 to 9 are not entitled to any share of land in view of their possession as alleged before 26 January 1950 in view of the exemptions laid down under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands Act ? OPP

2. Whether the alleged orders passed by the Director, Consolidation and Consolidation Officer are passed without jurisdiction ? If so, to what effect ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad in view of Section 44 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for want of service under section 80 CPC? OPD.

6. Relief."

6. The learned Collector concerned, after making a well appraisal of the evidence, as became adduced thereons by the litigants concerned, whereupon whom the evidence discharging onus became cast, returned thereons rat