IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20358 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 18, 2011 Amardeep Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Land Records –cum- Director Consolidation, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sonu Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 exparte. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an error in mentioning khasra number in order dated 24.7.1969 (Annexure P-1) passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Learned counsel contends that the error was brought to the notice of the authorities by virtue of an application filed by the petitioner. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated CWP No.20358 of 2009 [2] 16.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) while saying that any change made in order (Annexure P-1) would tantamount to review which is not permissible in law. 2. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 3. If there has been a typographical error in a document, surely, the same can be corrected by the same authority when the fact is brought to its notice. In such circumstances, respondent No.1 is directed to address the issue raised by the petitioner and in case there is a typographical error in mentioning khasra number in order dated 24.7.1969 (Annexure P-1), the same be corrected so as to correct the record and to do substantial justice. 4. Petitioner would appear before respondent No.1 i.e. Director, Land Records –cum- Director Consolidation, Punjab, on 4.7.2011. Needful be done within four weeks thereof. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (AJAI LAMBA) May 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?