IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1547 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2011 Karnail Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) 1. Karnail Singh has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 24.8.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4664 of 2002, filed by the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondents No.3 and 4, namely Karam Singh (since deceased), whereby the order dated 30.1.2002, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was quashed. 2. After notice, we have heard learned counsel for both the parties. LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -2- 3. In the present appeal, the dispute is regarding the boundary of 1 Marla of land, allotted to the appellant in the consolidation proceedings, which had taken place in the year 1987-88. During those proceedings, vide order dated 1.8.1988 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, the appellant was allotted 1 Marla of land from south-east of khasra No. 784, being Gair Marusi of land owner M/s Balwant Kishan Kapoor and others. The appellant was satisfied with that order. However, Karam Singh (husband and father of respondents No.2 to 4), feeling aggrieved against the said order, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). His grouse was that at the time of consolidation, the appellant was having no right as Gair Marusi and he was wrongly allotted 1 Marla of land from khasra No. 784. On 31.7.1989, his appeal was dismissed. Against the said order, he filed second appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 8.9.1989 (Annexure P-2) and the orders of the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) were set aside. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the above order, the appellant filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, who vide his order dated 16.3.1990 (Annexure P-3) allowed the petition, and the order of the Consolidation Officer, giving the appellant 1 Marla of land from south- east of khasra No. 784 was restored. The said order became final, as the LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -3- same was not challenged by either of the parties. 5. Thereafter, when the appellant initiated his case for sanctioning the mutation in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid order, he felt that there was a mistake in the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. According to him, instead of south-east of khasra No. 784, it should be south-west. In order to make the said correction, the appellant filed a civil suit, which was dismissed on the ground that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 44 of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under Section 43-A of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, for making correction in the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner forwarded that petition to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, for disposal. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide order dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-8), allowed the said petition, while making the following observations : “I feel that the petition deserves to be accepted and South East should be corrected to South West. Clerical mistake can always be corrected under section 43-A and the respondent is not adversely affected by this correct. I accordingly accept the petition.” 6. The said order was challenged by Karam Singh in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been quashed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, while observing that the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -4- the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has become final. Even the civil suit filed by the appellant for making correction has been dismissed. In view of this, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was having no power to correct the mistake in the order, passed by the Consolidation Officer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law, while not properly appreciating the scope of Section 43-A of the Act, which empowers the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, to correct the mistake in the order, passed by him. Merely because the civil suit, filed by the appellant, was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, the appellant was not restrained from invoking the provision of Section 43-A of the Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 argued that vide order dated 1.8.1988, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the appellant was given 1 Marla of land from south-east of Khasra No. 784 consciously, as he was possessing only 1 Marla of land being Gair Marusi of M/s Balwant Kishan Kapoor and others. According to the learned counsel, there was no mistake in the said order and even the appellant did not challenge that order by filing an appeal. Therefore, at the belated stage, when the said order was ultimately approved and affirmed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, the appellant could not have moved an application under Section 43-A of the Act before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, for making correction, as in the order, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, there was no mistake. He further LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -5- argued that even under Section 43-A of the Act, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a scheme made, or an order passed by any officer under the Act arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Since there was no mistake in the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, therefore, no such application could have been filed before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, while passing the order dated 30.1.2002, has travelled beyond jurisdiction, which has been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, in the present case, vide order dated 1.8.1988, the Consolidation Officer allotted 1 Marla of land from south-east of khasra No. 784 to the appellant being Gair Marusi. The appellant never challenged the said order. He did not raise any grouse that there was a mistake in the said order. At one stage, the said order was set aside, but ultimately on the appeal, filed by the appellant, it was upheld and affirmed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. In the said order also, it was specifically mentioned that the appellant will be given 1 Marla of land from south-east of khasra No. 784. As far as the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, is concerned, while affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer, he did not commit any mistake. Whatsoever land was given to the appellant by the LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -6- Consolidation Officer, the same was affirmed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Admittedly, the said order has become final. None of the parties filed any appeal against the said order. It is a fact that the civil suit, filed by the appellant claiming 1 Marla of land from south- west, has been dismissed by the civil court, may be being barred by jurisdiction. Even otherwise, as per Section 43-A of the Act, an application for making correction in an order passed by any officer under the Act, lies only before the authority, who passed such an order. Section 43-A of the Act reads as under : 43A – Correction of clerical errors – Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a scheme made, or an order passed by any officer, under this Act arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.” Admittedly, in this case, instead of filing an application before the Consolidation Officer for making correction in the order dated 1.8.1988 passed by him, the appellant filed the application before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who did not commit any mistake, but only affirmed the order, which was passed by the Consolidation Officer. Therefore, the application under Section 43-A of the Act, filed by the appellant before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was not maintainable and the order dated 30.1.2002, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, making the correction in the order of the LPA No. 1547 of 2010 -7- Consolidation Officer, was wholly without jurisdiction and it has been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 15, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE