Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

One Mukhtiar Singh-respondent No.4 herein, instituted petition No.S-176/93, before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, impleading therein Municipal Committee, Barnala (Sangrur) through its Executive Officer, as respondent.

2. Respondent No.4, in the apposite petition, claimed that there was shortage or under allotment of land to him, and, as such the said be undone through the land assigned in the consolidation scheme, to the Gram Panchayat concerned, for the benefit of the village proprietary body, lands whereof has now transmitted to M.C. Barnala, thus being assigned to him.

3. Through a decision drawn on the said lis, on 28.04.1994 (Annexure P-3), the Additional Director, Consolidation remanded the lis to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to him that he should visit the spot and make good the shortage caused to respondent No.4 from the bachat lands. In pursuance to Annexure P-3, Annexure P-4 became recorded, wherebys modifications were made after accepting the remanded lis, and, the Consolidation Officer proceeded to make the hereinafter extracted modifications in the finalized consolidation scheme. Subsequently petition No.114/95 became raised by the M.C. Barnala, whereby it challenged Annexure P-3 and P-4. The said petition became allowed through an order Annexure P-5 becoming made thereons.

4. In pursuance to Annexure P-5, Annexure P-6 became recorded whereby the order rendered on 08.09.1994 (Annexure P-4) became affirmed. Resultantly, the present petitioner becomes aggrieved from the said order, and, is led to institute the instant writ petition before this Court.

5. Imminently the Consolidation Operations in the Mohal concerned, evidently concluded in the year 1961-62, whereas, Misl No.S- 176/93, became instituted by respondent No.4 much belatedly therefrom i.e. in the year 1993.

6. It is not contested amongst the contesting litigants that in pursuance to the said concluded, consolidation operations in the Mohal concerned, thus in the year 1961-62, thus the records of rights became updated in terms of Section 22 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

7. Be that as it may, though no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 42 of the Act for the contemplated thereins, valid exercisings of jurisdiction becoming made, thus on the motion, as becomes laid before the statutory authority concerned. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the makings of the decision on the said made motion, is strictly confined to the said motion being made for corrections being done to clerical or arithmetical mistakes or to create a revenue rasta, if no rasta is created by the consolidation officer concerned.

8. The reason for allowing the instant petition strikingly emanates from the factum that the jurisdiction cast under Section 42 of the Act, provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus was not exercisable by the Authorities, who made the order on 23.05.1995 (Annexure P-5), and, which ultimately led to the making of the impugned annexure P-6, whereby the Consolidation Officer concerned, accepted the remanded case and allotted the lands to the objector.

42. Power of [State] Government to call for proceedings: The [State] Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of [any order passed, scheme prepared or confir