Pathak, J. - (1.) TWO contentions have been raised before us by learned Counsel for the Appellant. He points out that the statement in the order of the Deputy Director made under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to the effect that Mangal Singh has been shown in possession in 1357 Fasli in certain extracts of the revenue records is erroneous and by reason of that error the finding given by the Deputy Director against the Appellant suffers from a manifest error of law. We have carefully gone through the documents on the record before us and we are not satisfied that there is any substance in this contention. We are in agreement with our brother Jagdish Sahai, who dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the Appellant and against whose decision this appeal has been preferred, that it is very probable that the Deputy Director referred to certain specific documents showing that Mangal Singh had entered into possession in 1357 Fasli. That that is so appears also from the order of the Consolidation Officer who refers to a document showing the possession of Mangal Singh in 1357 Fasli. Therefore, the contention that the Deputy Director had misread the evidence on the record cannot be accepted.
(2.) THEN , learned Counsel contends that the Statement of Proposals had been finalised under Section 23 (2) and the revision application pending before the Deputy Director could not be decided by him because, he points out, after the Statement of Proposals had been confirmed the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the revision application pending before him. Reliance is placed by learned Counsel upon a decision of this Court in Atar Singh v. Dhoop Singh (1963 ALJ 975) in support of this proposition. But the decision in that case, we find, rested upon the state of the law as it obtained in 1957 and before the present provision was brought in by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958. At the time when the decision in Atar Singh's case was given, Section 23 stood as amended by Section 10 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1957. By that amendment Section 23 read as follows: 23. Confirmation of the Statement of Proposals: (1) The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall confirm the Statement of Proposals if no objections are filed within the time specified in Section 20 or, where such objections are filed, after such modification or alterations as may be necessary in view of the orders passed under Section 21. (2) The Statement as confirmed shall be published and shall be final except in so far as it relates to land which is the subject -matter of references made to the Civil Judge and which have not been disposed of till then. The learned Judges who decided Atar Singh's case expressed the view that because Section 23 (2) made the finality of the Statement subject only to the pendency of references made to the Civil Judge, therefore, no case could be spelt out for adding an additional exception against the operation of that finality. The portion today is entirely different. By the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1958, Section 23 was recast and reads as follows: 23. Confirmation of Statement of Proposals: (1) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall confirm the Statement of Proposals - (a) if no objections are filed within the time specified in Section 20, or where no action has been taken by him under Section 22, or (b) where such objections are filed or where action has been taken by him under Section 22 after modification or alterations as may be necessary in view of the orders passed under Sub -sections (1) to (5) of Section 21 and Section 22. (2) The Statement of Proposals so confirmed shall be published in the unit and shall, except as otherwise provided by, or under this Act, be final. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall thereupon issue allotment orders on the basis of the Statement of Proposals as confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in such form as may be prescribed. The Legislature omitted specific reference to references pending before the Civil Judge and instead inserted the words "except as otherwise provided by, or under, this Act." Therefore, it was contemplated that the Statement of Proposals confirmed under Section 23(1) would be final unless there was an order under some other provision of the Act detracting from that finality. Now an order passed under Section 48 of the Act would, in our opinion, be an order which would govern the finality of the Statement of Proposals. To hold otherwise and to accept the contention of learned Counsel that a revision application under Section 48 could not be disposed of after the Statement of Proposals has been confirmed and that the Deputy Director, lost his jurisdiction to dispose of such application or to make an order suo motu under Section 48 would be to hold that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 could not be exercised even though there was an error of jurisdiction in the orders upon which the Statement of Proposals had become final. The Legislature could never have intended to nullify the jurisdiction under Section 48 so. There is nothing in the language of Section 48 itself placing any limitation upon the full play of its provisions. It was apparently in order to remove this anomaly that the provision was reframed in 1958 and the words "except as otherwise provided by, or under, this Act" were expressly inserted in Section 23(2). There are several provisions of the Act which were inserted in the statute in 1958, among them being Section 42A which empowers the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to remove any arithmetical or clerical error apparent on the face of the record in any document prepared under the Act. This power, it seems to us, could be exercised even after the confirmation of the Statement of Proposals under Section 23(1). If it were not so, the Statement of Proposals would become final and would be plainly erroneous in some other material particular because it proceeded on the Oasis of an order which contained a patent clerical or arithmetical error. An order under Section 42A, we think, is one of those orders which are contemplated under the aforesaid expression "except as otherwise provided by, or under, this Act."
(3.) WE are, therefore, of opinion that the order passed under Section 48 by the Deputy Director in the instant case was an order within his jurisdiction, and was an order which was bound to affect the finality of the Statement of Proposals. The Statement of Proposals confirmed under Section 23(1), we think, was bound to be read with the order made under Section 48. The plea that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to decide the revision application before him must be overruled.;