The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and does not extend to adjudicating disputed titles, which must be resolved by Civil Courts.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since a common issue is involved in all the writ petitions therefore all the writ petitions, are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.

2. For the sake of brevity the facts are taken from CWP-14896- 1996.

3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner-Municipal Council, Barnala has challenged the order dated 05.01.1996, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Mohali (Hoshiarpur).

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter there is merit in the instant writ petition, and, the same is required to be allowed.

4. The reason for allowing the instant petition strikingly emanates from the factum that the jurisdiction cast under Section 42 of the The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948") provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus was not exercisable by the Authorities, who made the order on 13.07.1995, and, which ultimately led to the making of the impugned annexure P-4, 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 confirmed or repartition made by any officer under Act], call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass order in reference thereto thinks fit:

5. The reason for drawing the above inference stems from the factum, that the validly exercisable jurisdiction by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, is only upon a motion asking for corrections being done of arithmetical and clerical mistakes as occur in the finalized consolidation scheme and in sequel whereby the updation of records is made in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1948.

6. The above jurisdiction is but with a holistic purpose, so as to ensure that such mistakes, as but truncate the rights of the estate holders, who have rather been assigned title over certain tracts of lands, thus respectively in the Scheme Istemal or Naksha Paimaish and in the finalized consolidation scheme, rather do not untenably jeopardise the well conferred title over the relevant tracts of lands, rather whereovers an able title is conferred in the apposite estate holders. Resultantly, thereby such clerical mistakes do require theirs being undone.

7. Moreover, the said jurisdiction is only exercisable upon no consolidation rasta becoming created, thereupon a dire necessity arising for the creation of a rasta, through the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, as through the creation of a rasta, thus easementary rights would become exercised thereons by all the estate holders concerned.

8. Necessarily, the said jurisdiction is not exercisable, thus for making tinkerings with finalized consolidation scheme nor is to be exercised so as to tinker with the updation of records, as is done in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1948. The reason for disallowing the above tinkerings strikingly emanates, from the factum, that since therebys a disputed question of title evidently surfaces, amongst the estate holders concerned, thereby the said disputed question of title, when is neither amenable for being raised nor is amenable for being adjudicated upon by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, thereby any adjudication as made by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 vis-a-vis such disputed question of title, rather makes such an adjudication to be beyond the jurisdictional confines of the exercisable jurisdiction vested in it/them, under Section 42 of the Act of 1948. Contrarily, in terms of the verdict made by the Full Bench of this Court in case titled as 'Parkash Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab', reported in 2014