IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16047 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 18, 2011 Syalu Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Consolidation Department, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for remaining respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 19.5.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by Director Consolidation, Haryana. 2. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been a mistake in regard to recording of share of the CWP No.16047 of 2007 [2] petitioners at the point in time when consolidation took place. According to consolidation record, mutation has been entered. 3. In the impugned order (Annexure P-7), it has been said, “If there is any mistake in respect of any share in mutation no.35 then the petitioners can approach the competent court of law and get the mistake corrected by filing suit”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that because there is clerical error in arithmetic calculation of area of land, it can be corrected at any stage. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that when the mutation proceedings were pending adjudication in the year 2002, objections could have been raised. The plea of the petitioners is highly belated and therefore, no indulgence is called for. 6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 7. The above extracted portion in the order passed by the Director Consolidation cannot be sustained in law for the reason that mutation has been sanctioned as per the consolidation record. If an error has crept in, in the consolidation record, it needs to be corrected by that authority. 8. Considering the fact that equity is CWP No.16047 of 2007 [3] in favour of the petitioners who have pleaded that on account of a clerical mistake, less share has been given to the petitioners, Order dated 19.5.2007 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed. 9. Parties are relegated to Director Consolidation, Haryana, who shall consider whether infact an error had crept in, and pass appropriate orders as required by law after considering the rival contentions. In case, infact there is an error, as pleaded on behalf of the petitioners, the authority is required to correct the error and restore the right of the petitioners that vests in them. 10. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) March 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?