IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17557 of 2011 Date of decision 19.9.2011 Umed Singh . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. AP Bhandari Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the alleged action of the respondents claiming that the land in question is owned and possessed by him and on the basis of mutation made in the year 1984 (P.6) the ownership has been changed under Section 43A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Consolidation Act'). It is appropriate to mention that Section 43 A of the Consolidation Act, as per the petitioner's own showing, only deals with correction of clerical or arithmetical error made in an order passed by the officer under that Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order then the proper remedy for him is to approach the revenue authorities as per the provisions of law. The writ petition would not be competent. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy before the revenue authorities. 2. With the aforesaid order and observations, the petition stands disposed of. (M.M.Kumar) Acting Chief Justice (Gurdev Singh) 19 .9.2011 Judge okg