IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11665 OF 2010 1. NAGINA PASWAN S/O LATE SAKALDEEP PASWAN R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BUKSAMA, ANCHAL & P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI 2. RAM UCHIT PASWAN S/O LATE SAKALDEEP PASWAN R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BUKSAMA, ANCHAL & P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI 3. RAMANUJ PASWAN S/O LATE SAKALDEEP PASWAN R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BUKSAMA, ANCHAL & P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI 4. RAM ANUP PASWAN S/O LATE SAKALDEEP PASWAN R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- BUKSAMA, ANCHAL & P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI VERSUS 1. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 3. DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM BARAN SINGH R/O VILL.- BUKSAMA, P.O.- BUKSAMA, ANCHAL & P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI ********** 3 11/10/2010 This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2007 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Patna. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 33 (A) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act for correction in the entry in the chak recorded in the name of the respondents. An application was obviously not filed at the stage of Section 10 of the Consolidation Act. Section 33 (A) of the Consolidation Act provides that if the Consolidation Officer or Assistant Director of Consolidation is satisfied that a “clerical or arithmetical error” is apparent on the face of the records of any document prepared under the provisions of this Act, he shall either on his own application or on the application 2 of the person, correct the same. Obviously, the claim of the petitioners that his name would be recorded on the basis of the entry in the cadastral survey is not a clerical or arithmetical error and to that extent, the Director, Consolidation is correct in concluding that no revision would be maintainable against the order of the Consolidation Officer or the appellate order of the Assistant Director, Consolidation. Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Director, Consolidation could have passed an order under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act. In this case, I find that the petitioners have not moved before the Director, Consolidation under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act, as such there was no reason for the Director, Consolidation to interfere in the matter. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, it would be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them under the Act. This application is thus dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )