- (1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.5.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short D.D.C) by which he has allowed the revisions being Revision No. 1674 Surya Narain and others Vs. Ram Surat and others and Revision No. 1940 Sachidanand Vs. Surya Narain and others. The said revisions were filed against order dated 6.11.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 307 under Section 42 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The D.D.C. allowed the revision on the ground that the order impugned in the revisions was beyond the scope of Section 42 (A) as by that order, amendment has been made in the chak which is beyond the scope of Section 42 (A) of the Act.
(2.) SRI Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is on merit and there was nothing to disturb the aforesaid order even if the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that the order could not have been passed under Section 42 (A). It is also contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power under sub-Section 1 of Section 48 to do justice to the parties by the summoning the record of the courts below even if the order passed by the C.O. was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the application was filed under Section 42 (A) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was only examining the illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer therefore it cannot be said that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is anyway illegal order. In his submissions, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) FOR appreciating the controversy, the language used in Section 42 (A) would be necessary to be looked into which is reproduced herein under :- Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the fact of the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall, either on his own motion, or on the application of any person interest, correct the same. ;