IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1335 of 2008. Reserved on: 6.1.2009. Decided on: 09.01.2009. _______________________________________________________ Shri Nagin Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the consolidation operation in the village was started in the year 1983-1984. The Scheme was prepared on 4.12.1984. The operation came to an end in the year 1985-1986. The petitioner moved an application under Section 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 before the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur on 29.12.2006. The Consolidation Officer sought detailed report of the spot from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 the Kanungo. The report is Annexure P-3. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the report of the Office Kanungo passed order for correction of entries in Shajra qua Khasra Nos. 290/1 and 290/2 on 23.1.2007. Respondent No.3 assailed the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh. It appears from the record that he had sought the report from the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur and he after perusing the report of the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur allowed the revision on 21.6.2008. Shri Surinder Saklani has strenuously argued that the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 21.6.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. His further contention is that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been passed on the basis of the report furnished by the Kanungo after visiting the spot. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 have supported the order dated 21.6.2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. It is not disputed by the parties that the consolidation proceedings were undertaken in the village in the year 1983-1984. The scheme was framed on 4.12.1984. Thereafter, partition has taken place and parties were put in possession and revenue entries were also changed. This position has continued till 2006. The application was moved for the correction by the petitioner under Section 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and 3 Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 on 29.12.2006. Section 56 of the Act reads thus: “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.” It is evident from a bare perusal of the language employed in the section that only clerical/arithmetical errors can be corrected. In other words, what has attained finality cannot be altered and the possession of the parties cannot be directed to be changed. The Consolidation Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the dispute by seeking the report of the Kanungo. He on the basis of the report of the Kanungo had directed the corrections to be made in the ‘Shajra’ qua Khasra Nos. 290/1 and 290/2. In other words, he has done something which was not stipulated under the scheme prepared under the Act. The Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is a complete code in itself. The draft scheme is prepared thereafter, the objections are called, the scheme is finalized and thereafter, the partition takes place. The parties can raise objection by filing appeals in the prescribed manner. The petitioner had not chosen to file any objection under Section 30 of the Act. The application preferred by him under Section 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 was misconceived. This 4 application filed after a period of 22 years was not maintainable. The settled things cannot be permitted to be unsettled. Mr. Surinder Saklani has argued that he came to know about the status of his property when respondent No.3 filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur on 19.12.2006. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner did not know the exact status of his property. After the scheme had been prepared in the village in the year 1984, the parties were put in possession of their respective areas and thereafter, the revenue entries were changed. These orders are passed during the course of the consolidation proceedings in presence of the parties. Consequently, it is held that the application preferred by the petitioner after a gap of 22 years was not maintainable. The Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction except to correct clerical and arithmetical errors under Section 56 of the Act. Accordingly, in the present case, he has exceeded his jurisdiction by altering the possession of the parties qua Khasra Nos. 290, 290/1 and 290/2. The Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Himachal Pradesh has taken into consideration that application preferred by the petitioner was filed after 22 years. He has also sought the report from the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur. The Director, Consolidation and Holdings has noted in his order that the order perhaps has been passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the report of the Kanungo and the statement of the petitioner, who was an interested party in the case. Respondent No.3 was not present on the spot, as observed by the learned Director in his order dated 21.6.2008. 5 Mr. Surinder Saklani has also argued that the correction can be carried out at any time. The expression “at any time” has to be given pragmatic interpretation. “At any time” will mean that the same has to be done within a period of 3 to 4 years. If the plea of Mr. Surinder Saklani is accepted that the correction can be carried out “at any time” it will amount to unsettle the settled things and will affect the possession of the parties after a considerable period. This will also be against the spirit of the Act. Consequently, in view of the analysis and the observations made hereinabove, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Director, Consolidation and Holdings on 21.6.2008. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall not be any order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J . January 09, 2009. (cr)