JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders, i.e., Annexure P1 dated 18.10.1978, Annexure P2 dated 21.7.1979 and Annexure P3 dated 7.8.1980 passed by the official respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and against respondents Nos. 3 to 18 private respondents.
2. It has been alleged by the petitioners that they and respondents Nos. 3 to 18 are the residents of village Kotli Ablu, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot. Consolidation operations took place in the village during the year 1961-62 and parties were settled on their new holdings carved out during the consolidation operations. After the consolidation operations and upto the passing of the impugned orders no person was either aggrieved from any order or entry or went in appeal Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (for short ‘the Act’). Later on respondents Nos. 3 to 18 filed two petitions Under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1 and the same were decided vide order dated 18.10.1978 (Annexure P1). The private respondents prayed in the said petitions that in the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Khewat No. 543, Khatauni Nos. 2000 to 2007, Sar hri Karam Singh, Angrez Singh, Lal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh thers were shown as owners, whereas in the column of ‘cultivation’ Sar hri Sadhu Singh, Karnail Kaur and Nazar Singh, co-owners, have been shown as donors while Karam Singh thers aforesaid were shown as donees and there being a clerical mistake which needed to be corrected Under Section 43-A of the said Act. Respondent No. l, i.e., Director Consolidation of Holdings, observed in the order that entry in the Khatauni Istamal as well as Naqsha Haqdarwar were correctly prepared but somehow at the time of Khatauni Pamaish No. 1215 the entry was changed. Respondent No. 1 opined in his order that on account of the use of Urdu language, difficulty arose in reading the correct entry and being satisfied that the mistake needed correction the same was ordered to be corrected along with Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215, which came into existence after the consolidation and necessary correction was ordered to be carried in the revenue records showing Sadhu Singh and Karnail Kaur as donors while Karam Singh, Angrez Singh thers as donees. The petitioners alleged that after the passing of the said order, respondents Karam Singh thers were still not satisfied and they filed another application Under Section 43-A of the Act, showing that some other numbers were also there and corrections should be made in respect of those numbers as had been done earlier vide order Annexure P1. This time correction was sought in respect of Khatauni Paimaish No. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 to the same effect as claimed with respect to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215. The second petition of non-official respondents was disposed of and decided vide order dated 21.7.1979 (Annexure P2) and it was observed that Karam Singh and others should have been shown in the column of ‘possession’ in their capacity as donees in respect of those Killa numbers, which were gifted to them by the relevant resolutions. It was also observed by respondent No. 1 that Khasra numbers mentioned in the petition with respect to abovesaid Khataunis needed to be added to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215. Further directions were given by respondent No. 1 that Karam Singh thers would be shown as donees in the Khatauni Paimaish and by this order dated 21.7.1979 the earlier order dated 18.10.1978 (Annexure P1) also stood amended. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 21.7.1979 and 18.10.1978, the petitioners filed a revision Under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 2, who passed order dated 7.8.1980 (Annexure P3) and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. The grouse of the petitioners is that they were co-share is in the land along with the non-official respondents as the Khata was joint and they applied for the partition of the Khewat on 18.11.1974 itself before the passing of the impugned orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3. The partition proceedings were disposed of by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 9th May, 1978 and the Khata was partitioned. By virtue of the partition proceedings the possession with respect to the partitioned Khewat was also taken by the petitioners on 6th May, 1979 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 307 entered in the revenue records. This aspect of the that the parties had entered into their settled possession, could not be lost sight of by the Consolidation Authorities at the time of the passing of the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 Under Section 42 read with Section 43-A of the Act. Thus in the present writ petition the grouse of the petitioners is that the consolidation operation took place in the village in the year 1961-62 and continued upto the year 1979. No grievance was made out by anybody against the entry or the order made during the said consolidation operation. The prayer of the non-official respondents in their separate applications Under Section 42 and 43-A of the Act, which were made in the year 1978-79, was misconceived and it was erroneous on the part of respondent No. 2 to pass the order dated 21.7.1979 amending the Khataunis Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 as there was no ambiguity incorporated to the Khatauni Paimaish and secondly the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore the partition order passed by the revenue authorities in the partition proceedings Under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The impugned orders Annexures P2 and P3 could not be passed with respect to Khatauni Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 as those orders do not come within the purview of Section 43-A of the Act.
3. Notice was given to the respondents of the writ petition and it was resisted by private respondents Nos. 3, 6 to 15, who filed the written reply. They tried to justify the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 and the of these respondents is that the entries in the revenue records were liable to be corrected as donors/donees regarding the whole of the land in dispute, which was the factual position of the revenue record prior to the consolidation. When the answering respondents applied for the mutation, then they came to know that the entries regarding the whole of the land had not been corrected by respondent No. 2, but entries regarding half of the land mentioned in the Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215 was corrected and it became necessary for them to again apply before the Consolidation Authorities to incorporate the factual position with regard to Khatauni Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217 and 1218 also. Previously, the land measuring about 300 Acres owned by the petitioners and the non-official respondents was joint in Khata. During the consolidation proceedings even after the consolidation proceedings it remained as a joint one. That was the reason that it was not in the knowledge of the respondents about the factual position of the Khatauni Paimaish. The answering respondents came to know about the factual mistake when the petitioners applied for the partition of the 1 d specially when the partition order was passed by the revenue officer. The land given to the private respondents was less and when they inquired about this fact from the Revenue Department, they came to know about the clerical mistake. Orders P2 and P3 have been rightly passed by the authorities concerned and cannot be successfully challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition because the clerical and arithmetical mistake can be rectified by the Consolidation Authorities Under Section 43-A of the Act and the propriety of any mistake can also be adjudged by the said authorities Under Section 42 of the Act.
4. A rejoinder was also filed by the present petitioners and it was submitted that while filing the first application, which culminated in the order Annexure P1. The sole prayer which was made by the respondents was with respect to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215 which was ordered to be corrected by virtue of Annexure P1 and the petitioners have no grouse with regard to that order. It has been denied by the petitioners that the respondents sought correction of the whole of the land in the first application. The first petition was Under Section 42 of the Act seeking correction of Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215, whereas the second petition was made Under Section 43-A of the Act for the correction of certain other numbers.
5. I have heard Shri Arun Palli, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, and Shri Ashok Singla, Advocate, on behalf of the non-official respondents, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this .
6. After hearing the learned counsel n going through the record I have come to the conclusion that the present petition is devoid of any merit. The entire thrust of the argument of Mr. Palli was that in view of the partition proceedings which were initiated on 18.11.1974 and decided on 9.5.1978 the joint Khata was partitioned. The proposed changes were accepted by the parties n the basis of the partition order the factual position with regard to the ownership and the land vis-avis the parties was shown in the revenue record. Though the order of the Tehsildar is dated 9.5.1978, yet it would relate back to 18.11.1974; so much so the order dated 9.5.1978 was further confirmed by the Collector vide Annexure P5 dated 27.2.1979 when the appeal of the respondents was dismissed as time-barred and so much so on the basis of the partition proceedings the possessions were also exchanged on 6.5.1979 vide entry of Roznamcha No. 307. With this background Mr. Palli submitted that it was too late for the respondents to apply for the correction of Khatauni Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131. It was also submitted that while filing the first application Under Section 42 of the Act, the prayer was with regard to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215 and the order passed on 18.10.1978. This order was never challenged by the respondents, and the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore the orders of partition passed by the competent revenue authorities Under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
7. The petitioners cannot take the advantage of Annexures P4, P5 and P6, i.e., the order of the Tehsildar, order of the Collector and the Rapat Roznamcha in view of the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3. In this regard it is submitted that the claim in the consolidation proceedings was framed on the basis of the revenue record and if there was wrong entry made in the revenue record, which led to the incorrect preparation of the record by the Consolidation Authorities, that mistake was supposed to be corrected by the Consolidation Authorities themselves. The partition proceedings which were not on factual position, could not convey a better status upon the petitioners than the one determined by the Consolidation Authorities while exercising their legal jurisdiction by passing the orders P1, P2 and P3. The petitioners themselves in their replication have abandoned the challenge to Annexure P1; meaning thereby that they themselves admit the factual mistake which occurred with respect to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215. Annexure P1 shows that two petitions were filed Under Section 42 of the Act. The contention before the Consolidation Authorities was that in the Jamabandi of village Kotli Ablu for the year 1955-56, in Khewat No. 543, Khatauni Nos. 2000 to 20007 Sar hri Karam Singh, Angrez Singh, Lal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh have been shown as owners and in the ‘Cultivation’ column Sa hri Sadhu Singh, Karnail Kaur, Nazar Singh have been shown as donors, whereas Karam Singh, Angrez Singh, Lal Singh have been shown as donees. During consolidation of holdings the entry in the Khatauni Istemal reflected correctly and also in the Naqsha Haqdenwar, but in the Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215 Sar hri Sadhu Singh, Karnail Kaur thers were shown as mortgagors instead of donors, while Karam Singh, Angrez Singh thers were showen as mortgagees instead of donees. This was a clerical mistake according to the revenue authorities which needed to be corrected Under Section 43-A of the Act. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was justified in concluding that the explanation offered by the parties with respect to the factual mistake was genuine and accordingly orders were passed. If the petitioners have no grouse vis-a-vis P1, they cannot agitate with regard to the orders P2 and P3 irrespective of the fact that the partition order was earlier to the filing of the petition Under Section 43-A of the Act, which resulted in the passing of the order Annexure P2. In fact, the order (Annexure P2), has been passed in continuation of the order (Annexure P1), as is evident from the order itself when it incorporates as under :-
“Earlier a petition filed by Sh. Karam Singh etc. (No. 1304 of 1978) Under Section 42 of the Act ibid was decided by this Court on 18.10.78. It has been pointed out that although the point involved in the matter has been duly decided therein, with the result that the relief sought by the petitioners has not been made available to them entirely. For example the correction was ordered to be carried out in respect of Khatauni Palmaish No. 1215, whereas the same was also required to be made in respect of Khatauni Paimaish No. 1216, 1217 and 1218.”
If in the consolidation entries the factual position was the same as noticed by the Consolidation Authorities while passing the order dated 21.7.1979 (Annexure P2), and if any mistake has crept in while preparing the consolidation record, such order or mistake could be rectified under sections 42 and 43-A of the Act. The order (Annexure P2) further speaks that Karam Singh etc. should have been shown in the column of ‘possession’ in their capacity as donees in respect of those Killa numbers, which were gifted to them in the relevant resolutions. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, further examined the records and came to the conclusion after receiving the details from the Kanungo that Killa numbers mentioned in the above Khataunies paimaish, i.e., 1216,1217 and 1218, need to be added to Khatauni No. 1215, which was corrected vide order Annexure P1. For the above reasons, the Director (Consolidation) passed the order dated 21.7.1979 (Annexure P2). which was challenged by the present petitioners before the Additional Director (Consolidation), Punjab, Chandigarh, who passed the order dated 7.8.1980 (Annexure P3) and dismissed the revision. This authority also came to the conclusion that since all the corrections required were not made by the first order dated 18.10.1978 (Annexure P1), Karam Singh filed another application Under Section 43-A of the Act and the order dated 21.7.1979 for the removal of the defects was passed. The contention raised by Mr. Palli was put forth and considered by the Additional Director in his order dated 7.8.1980 (Annexure P3) and was rightly rejected. In this regard, the relevant observation made by the Additional Director is as follows:-
“I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Any correction made Under Section 43-A of the C/H Act takes effect from the preparation of the Khatauni Paimaish and its corporation in the revenue record starts from that stage. Repartition was carried out in the year 1962 and Misal Haqiat was prepared in the year 1964-65. All the corrections changing the entries from mortgagors to mortgagees to donors and donees are presumed to have taken effect from the date when these wrong entries came to be incorporated in the record. Any order obtained by the petitioner on the basis of wrong entries cannot affect the order of the learned Director C/H Punjab passed for correcting these entries. The only way open to the petitioner is to file either a fresh application for partition and getting the Khatauni prepared during partition by the Tehsildar corrected. No relief can be given to the petitioner Under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.”
The above order would corroborate my reasons in disposing of the present writ petition that corrections would relate back from the date when the scheme was prepared and Khatauni Paimaish was done. Any order obtained by the petitioners on the basis of wrong entries could not affect the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The learned Additional Director further held and rightly too, that the only way open to the petitioners is to file a fresh application for the partition of the 1 d getting the Khatauni prepared during partition by the tensildar corrected. Elaborating further, if the petitioners have sought a partition on the basis of the wrong record prepared by the authorities, such mistake could be apparently corrected Under Section 42 read with Section 43-A of the Consolidation Act.
8. One of the major grouse of the petitioners before this Court is that the orders Annexures P2 and P3 could not be passed after a lapse of about one year either Under Section 42 or Under Section 43-A of the Act. This argument stands repelled in view of the citation reported as Chatar Singh Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors., 1987(1) Current Law Journal 496, wherein it was held that a petition Under Section 42 of the Act when entertained after a lapse of 27 years and the order passed thereon by the Consolidation Authorities could not be set aside when an error apparent on the face of the record was corrected and justice was done to the parties according to their respective rights. Even otherwise Section 42 does not speak of any limitation. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Shri Jagtar Singh Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab other, 1984 P.L.J. 222, and submitted that the bar of limitation of six months, as provided in Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act does not apply to the scheme prepared or affirmed or revision made under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. The authority reported as Mansa Ram State of Haryana thers, 1993 P.L.J. 339, clearly lays down that correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in a Scheme made or order passed by an officer under the Act can be done at any time by Authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
9. Summing up the above discussion, it is held that the petitioners cannot derive the benefit of the entries made on the basis of Annexures P4, P5 and Rapat Roznamcha Annexure P6 as their rights were determined on the basis of those entries, which were factually incorrect. When the mistake came to the notice of the respondents after the partition proceedings and the realistic position came to their notice with regard to the wrong entries made in the Consolidation proceedings, they did not lose any time to approach the Consolidation Authorities, who considered the entire record and rectified the mistake and passed the necessary orders Annexures P2 and P3, with which I have not been able to find any wrong or illegality.
10. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.