Rishi Prakash & Ors. vs The Financial Commissioner & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1234 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) 17691-93/2006

                    Judgment reserved on: 06.11.2008
%                   Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2009



       RISHI PRAKASH & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                       Through:        Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate
                                       with Mr. Rajiv Kr. Ghwana & Mr.
                                       Sunil Chauhan, Advocates

                         versus


       THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.           ..... Respondents
                      Through:  Ms. Purbali Bora for Ms. Aruna Tiku,
                                Standing Counsel for respondent
                                Nos.1 & 2
                                Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Advocate
                                for respondent No.3


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers            No
   may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?               Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be                   Yes
   reported in the Digest?


VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of Financial

Commissioner (FC) passed in Case No.91/03 dated 14.11.2006

whereby the FC has allowed the Revision Petition preferred by

respondent No.3 Smt. Dayawati under Section 42 of the East Punjab

Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1978

(the Act), and set aside the order dated 09.04.03 passed by the

Consolidated Officer (C.O.) in the proceedings initiated under section

43A the Act. Section 43A permits the correction of clerical or

arithmetical mistakes made in a scheme or an order passed by any

officer under the Act, arising from any accidental slip or omission. The

learned F.C. concluded that the C.O. by resort to Section 43A had not

merely corrected a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from an

accidental slip or omission in his earlier order (whereby land measuring

(2-2) was allotted to the petitioners), but had reviewed his earlier order

thereby relocating the plots allotted to the petitioners on the one hand,

and respondent No.3 on the other. Consequently, the learned F.C. held

that the C.O. had passed the order dated 09.04.2003 under Section

43A without jurisdiction, as the C.O. had no jurisdiction to review his

earlier order of repartition.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that

consolidation proceedings in Village Pooth Khurd were started vide

notification dated 1st September, 1998. The scheme of consolidation

was announced and the Khata Haqdars were asked to submit their

demand for allotment of plots in the extended Lal Dora/ Abadi. Initially

the petitioners (having Khata No.454) had been allotted residential plot

out of Khasra No.154/814 as per their entitlement of (2-2) simple and

(2-3) standard. Not satisfied with this initial allotment, they objected

against this allotment under Section 21(2) of the Act before the C.O.

On 26.07.2000 the C.O. allotted them land in Khasra No.154/819

thereby also withdrawing the earlier allotment. Respondent No.3

(having Khata No.1192) as per her entitlement was initially allotted

residential plot no.154/500-501 jointly with other Khata Haqdars

having Khata Nos.1191, 1193 and 1195. Some time in 1998-1999 a

joint application was made by all these Khata holders to the C.O

requesting for division of the plot separately to each khata holder,

since earlier they were holding separate khatas and had been wrongly

clubbed under the scheme. Proceeding was initiated in this regard on

10.9.99 and on 12.12.2000 respondent no.3 was allotted remaining

land measuring 19 biswas in Plot No.819, Khasra No.154. Vide public

notice dated 23rd February 2001, the proceedings on objections under

section 21(2) of the Act were completed.

3. The Respondent No.3 made an application dated 31.03.2003

to the SDM, Narela for demarcation of the sides of Plot No.154/819 in

Village Pooth Khurd. It is stated that at this stage the C.O. suo moto

initiated the proceedings under Section 43A of the Act that culminated

in the order dated 09.04.2003 whereby the C.O. held that the omission

to mention either "South-East" or "South-West" and the mere mention

of "Dakshin" or "South" in the allotment made to the petitioners, was a

clerical mistake which needed to be rectified under Section 43A of the

Act. Further, by this order the C.O. relocated the petitioner and

respondent No.3 by re-allotting the plots. Aggrieved by this order of

the C.O., Respondent No.3 moved a revision petition before the F.C.

challenging the said order as being illegal and without any jurisdiction

under the Act. The F.C. allowed the Revision Petition vide his order

dated 14.11.2006. The petitioner in this petition has assailed the order

of F.C. and has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari/mandamus for

setting aside the same.

4. The submission of the petitioner is that at the time of

allotment of the plot to the petitioner, which was made in their case

No.M-294/CO/99, the C.O. did not mention any direction of the portion

of plot No.154/819 allotted to the petitioner. The direction was

required to be determined as Plot No.819 had a bigger area than what

was allotted to them. Thus, a clerical mistake had occurred as there

were no sides mentioned by the C.O. at the time of allotment of the

residential plot No.154/819 (2-2) and therefore, it was rightly rectified

by the C.O. by his order dated 09.04.2003.

5. Petitioner points out that even the report of Halqa Patwari

dated 31st January 2003 which was sought by the C.O. for ascertaining

the position with regard to the direction of allotment made to the

petitioners, clearly states that the record available with the

department does not disclose the directions of the allotment to any of

the right holder. Mr. Sethi, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the

consolidation proceeding dated 31.07.2000 to show that as per

resolution 120 dated 28.07.2000, no direction was mentioned when

Plot 154/814 was withdrawn from the petitioner and Plot No.154/819

was allotted to him. Petitioners also submit that physical possession of

plot no. 514/819 was handed over on the spot in the year 2003 and

thereafter they started raising construction of boundary wall and room.

6. Petitioner alleges that allotment made to the respondent No.3

is illegal. It is pointed out that the Respondent No.3 at the time of

repartition under Section 21 (1) of the Act had been allotted residential

plot No.154/500 to the extent of two bighas and two biswas (2-2), and

residential plot No.501 to the extent of two bighas and two biswas (2-

2). She did not prefer any objection under 21(2) of the Act against her

allotment within the period of limitation, and even in the time barred

objection, she did not claim that Plot Nos.500 & 501 be withdrawn from

her, and some other residential plot be allotted to her. Hence, her

subsequent allotment made on 12.12.2000 in Plot No.819 is illegal.

Reliance is placed on the objection filed by the Respondent No.3 and

the proceedings sheets of the CO dealing with the said objection, which

is annexed as Annexure P-5(Colly) to the petition.

7. It is also submitted that total demand of the Respondent No.3

was 19 Biswas. She had already been allotted 1 bigah 15 biswas of

land, which is 16 biswas in excess of her entitlement. Therefore, it is

argued that allotment of 19 biswas in Plot no.819 made to her U/s.

21(1) was illegally made in the year 2000.

8. It is also submitted by the petitioner that one Siddharth

Sharma, who is the son of the Respondent No.3, had fraudulently

applied for the certified copies of Case No.14-294/99 in the name of

Sh. Chander Bose i.e. the petitioner No.2 herein, pertaining to the

allotment of the residential plot No.819 (2-2) to the petitioner. It is

alleged that while getting the certified copy under the name of the

Petitioner No.2, Siddharth Sharma had interpolated the original file by

writing the word "South" over the word min, in the repartition

proceedings record against the plot admeasuring (2-2) allotted to the

petitioners from out of the larger plot No.819, which is apparent from

the certified copy of the original file M-294/CO/99 annexed as

Annexure P7. The copy of the application for certified copy applied for

in the name Sh. Chander Bose is annexed as Annexure P6 to the

petition. An FIR was lodged and registered against Sh. Siddharth

Sharma on 03.02.2002. Report of the CFSL, Hyderabad sought by the

Police authorities has established that the handwriting on the

abovesaid application was that of Sh. Siddharth Sharma.

9. Petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the F.C. by

submitting that F.C. completely ignored the original record, which was

interpolated and let himself be swayed by the tampered entries. As a

result of the said tampering, all the subsequent records automatically

mention the direction "Dakshin" or "South" against the petitioners‟

allotment.

10. Petitioners further submit that under the scheme a rightholder

has a preferential right of allotment of the plot at his / her owned major

centre. The centre of Respondent No.3 was nowhere near the Plot

No.819. Therefore, it is argued that her subsequent allotment in Plot

No.819 is in complete violation of scheme of consolidation.

11. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out

that the proceedings before the C.O., which resulted in the order dated

09.04.2003 being passed, had in fact been initiated by Respondent

No.3 herself through application filed by her in the office of SDM,

Narela on 31.03.03 for demarcation of her plot No.154/819 in village

Pooth Khurd. Hence it cannot be said that the C.O. had taken suo

moto action.

12. Mr. Sethi contends that clerical/typographical error as

envisaged in Section 43A of the Act will also include "omissions". He

submits that the scope of Section 43A of the Act is same as that of

Sections 151 & 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, calls for

similar interpretation.

13. Respondent No.3 in her counter affidavit submits that C.O.

under the grab of invoking section 43A of the Act has in fact reviewed

the earlier repartition order and has unsettled the issues which were

settled earlier by his predecessor. It is contended that there is no

provision under the Act which allows the C.O. or any authority to

review its earlier order. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of

Supreme Court in Harbajan Singh v. Karam Singh And Others

[1966] 1 SCR 817.

14. It is further alleged that the CO has acted suo moto and

without jurisdiction after the completion of repartition proceedings as

well completion of the stage of Section 21(2). As per resolution no.269

dated 24.02.2001, annexed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit, it

is clear that vide General Notice it was informed that proceeding in

respect of objections under section 21(2) of the Act were over. He

clarifies that the application dated 31.01.03 of the respondent, which is

relied by the petitioners to say that it resulted in the proceeding before

the C.O. under Section 43A, was addressed to the SDM, Narela,

keeping in view the fact that after notice dated 24.02.2001 the C.O.

had become functous-officio. Reliance is placed on to the decision of

this Court in Ram Saroop v. Ram Nath & Anr. 38 (1989) Delhi Law

Times 473 to contend that C.O. does not have suo moto power to

change the scheme or the holdings allotted to landholders.

15. It is also submitted that in the original repartition order dated

26.07.2000 passed by the predecessor C.O. under Section 21(2) of the

Act recording allotment of the plot 154/819 (which was earlier allotted

to khata Haqdar No.1373) to the petitioners, the word „Dakshin‟ is

originally mentioned against the plot 154/819. It is also pointed out

that in all at seven places the word „Dakshin‟ has been indicated in

various revenue records contemporaneously. It is found mentioned at

2 places in register consolidation proceedings vide Resolution S.No.120

Annexure R-2 of the Counter Affidavit; at 2 places in register

consolidation proceedings vide Resolution S.No.120 Annexure R3 of

the counter affidavit; at 2 places in original record of M-294/CO/99

which approved the proposal of the petitioner under Section 21(2) of

the Act annexed as Annexure P7 to the petition; and in Annexure R-4

of the counter affidavit showing relevant entries in Khata No.1373,

regarding Plot No.154/819 under Resolution S.No.120 dated

26.07.2000.

16. Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel further submits that even in the

order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the C.O. under Section 43A of the

Act, the C.O. has specifically recorded the fact that the word „Dakshin‟

has been found mentioned in the records. The aforesaid fact has also

been admitted by the petitioners in their reply to the revision petition

before the Financial Commissioner in para 3.

17. Allegation of tampering of revenue records by the son of the

respondent no.3 is refuted as being false and misleading. It is stated

that the said aspect is pending trial before the Court. Reliance is

placed on the affidavit furnished by the concerned Patwari duly sworn

before his concerned SDM stating that no such tempering and

impersonation was done or tried to be done by anybody in the record

room as alleged.

18. Respondent No.3 categorically denies that on the spot

possession of plot 154/819 was handed over to the petitioners. It is

pointed out that in petitioner‟s application dated 15.03.03 addressed

to C.O., BDO Office Complex, Narela, a specific request to the revenue

authorities to handover the possession of the said plot in dispute was

made. Therefore, it is argued their contention that they were handed

over possession of the said plot on spot on 19.01.2003 can not be

sustained.

19. It is also alleged that the report of Halqa Patwari dated

31.1.03 is false and fabricated as neither he visited the record room

Kanjhawala on that day nor inspected the records pertaining to the plot

no.154/819 at the record room Kanjhawala. Even the said report finds

no mention of any proceedings in this respect.

20. Respondent No.3 specifically denies that any clerical mistake

had occurred at the time of consolidation by writing only "Dakshin" in

revenue record, and the description of the allotted plot as falling in

"Dakshin" is incomplete. It is submitted that this manner of describing

the land allotted is based on past practice and established procedure

of revenue proceedings in vogue. Reference is made to the order dated

25.01.03 passed by the CO in case no. M-4/Misc/CO/2002-03;

Proceeding register consolidation vide resolution No. 350 dated

09.04.03; and order passed in case no. M-25/TN/CO/20002-2003 to

indicate the usual practice of recording the pattern of allotment by

mere use of one word without detailing the specific directions such as

"South-East" or "South-West". Reliance is placed on Master

Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Anr. 1966 SCR (3)

99; Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare lal & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 736 and

Karan & Co. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 94 (2001) Delhi

Law Times 77 (DB) to demonstrate the settled law on what amounts to

a clerical or arithmetical error in an order.

21. The only issue which falls for my consideration is whether the

Financial Commissioner has rightly held that order passed by the C.O.

on 09.04.2003 tantamounts to a review of the earlier order, which

either did not mention any direction in respect of the petitioners‟

allotment of (2-2) in Khasra No.154/8919 (as contended by the

petitioners) or mentioned only "Dakshin" or "South" as the direction in

which the aforesaid plot was allotted out of Khasra No.154/819 (as

contended by respondent No.3). The decision of this issue depends on

the determination of the issue whether the omission to mention any

direction in the allotment made to the petitioners, or the mention of

only "Dakshin" as the direction amounts to an accidental slip or

omission which has resulted in a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the

earlier order dated 26.07.2000.

22. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the record I am of the view that there is no illegality in

the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. The C.O. in his order

dated 09.04.2003 observed that petitioner was allotted his share on

southern side, and mentioning of southern side is incomplete, as it is

not accompanied by other sides like "South-West" or "South-East".

This omission was held by him to be a clerical mistake that needed to

be rectified. He thereafter proceeded to re allot the plots to the

parties. The relevant part in the order is reproduced as under:

".................Keeping in view the provision of two rastas for every plot in consolidation scheme and other factors like Haqdar no. 454 was allotted plot first and he is allotted bigger chunk of plot 154/819. it will be right if Haqdar no. 454 is given piece of plot on bigger side i.e. western side which is 25 gatha long, side on eastern side is 22 gatha long. Hence, Haqdar no. 454 is given their piece of plot on western side with a rasta of two gatha wide on northern side and another rasta of three gatha width on southern side. Haqdar no. 1192 is given their piece of plot on eastern side with two gatha rasta on northern side and three gatha rasta on southern side, this makes the piece of plot of haqdar no. 1192 rectangular."

23. Section 43A of the Act under which the C.O. purported to

correct the clerical mistake in the repartition order reads as under:

"Section 43A. 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."

24. By virtue of Section 43A, the C.O. has authority under the Act

to rectify any "clerical or arithmetical mistake" arising from any

"accidental slip or omission" in the scheme made or an order passed

by him. A perusal of Section 43A shows that for invoking the same two

things are required. Firstly, there should be an "accidental slip or

omission" made by the authority concerned. Secondly, the accidental

slip or omission should result in only a "clerical or arithmetical

mistake" in the scheme or the order, as the case may be. A mistake

which requires for its resolution fresh application of mind to the

respective contentions of the parties, in such a manner as to

practically re-determine the inter se rights of the contesting parties,

such a mistake cannot be termed as a clerical or arithmetical mistake.

A clerical or arithmetical mistake would be one which is obvious and

can be corrected merely by reference to the order or the scheme,

without resort to a fresh process of reasoning. In Master

Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court observed:

"............................... An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. There is another qualification namely, such an error shall be apparent on the face of the record, that is to say, it is not an error which depends for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on

questions of fact or law. The accidental slip or omission is an accidental slip or omission made by the Court. The obvious instance is a slip or omission to embody in the order something which the Court in fact ordered to be done. This is sometimes described as a decretal order not being in accordance with the judgment. But the slip or omission may be attributed to the Judge himself. He may say something or omit to say something which he did not intend to say or omit. This is described as a slip or omission in the judgment itself. The cause for such a slip or omission may be the Judge's inadvertence or the advocate's mistake. But, however wide the said expressions are construed, they cannot countenance a re-argument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance............................................"

25. In the present case, the C.O. while passing the order dated

09.04.2003 does not merely say that the accidental slip or omission to

mention the specific direction "South-East" or "South-West" has led to

a clerical or arithmetical mistake, which could be said to be obvious.

The mistake, for it to be clerical or arithmetical mistake, should be

obvious, unintentional and should not require an elaborate process of

reasoning. In a case where the underlying basis and the fundamental

premise of allotment itself is put in question, on account of a so-called

accidental slip or omission, the same cannot be said to be a clerical or

arithmetical mistake.

26. In the present case, the C.O., as would be evident from the

aforesaid extract, has afresh applied his mind to determine the

location of the area allotted to the petitioners on the one hand, and

respondent No.3 on the other, by reference to the consolidation

scheme. This, in my view, cannot be termed to be the correction of a

mere clerical or arithmetical mistake, assuming that the failure to

mention any direction, or to mention only "Dakshin" or "South" as the

direction of the plot allotted to the petitioners was an "accidental slip

or omission" as contended by the petitioners. By purporting to rectify

the mistake the C.O. could not have altered the settled allotment.

27. The Financial Commissioner in his order has rightly held that

the C.O. was only expected to indicate the sides of plots allotted to the

parties out of Khasra No.154/819 and, therefore, it should have been a

straightforward exercise for him if it were merely a case of a clerical or

arithmetical mistake. Instead, the C.O. has, by a fresh process of

reasoning sought to re-determine the rights of the parties.

28. The effect of the order dated 09.04.2003 is that the C.O. on its

own, and without any authority under the Act, has reviewed the

repartition order. There is no provision in the Act empowering the

authorities under the Act to review their order. The observation of

Supreme Court in Harbanjan Singh (supra) in this regard are

relevant, and read as follow:

"There is no provision in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act granting express power of review to the state Government with regard to an order made under S.42 of the Act. In the absence of any such express power,it is manifest that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, the Director, cannot review his previous order of 3rd April 1958dismissing the application of Harbajan Singh under section42 of the Act. It follows therefore that the order of the Director dated 29th August, 1958is ultra

vires and without jurisdiction and the High Court was right in quashing that order by the grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution."

29. The C.O., without receiving any objection under section 21 of

the Act, has no power to suo moto change the holdings allotted to the

parties. This is not at all envisaged under the Act. In Ram Saroop

(supra) this Court after taking note of the decision in Nazar and

others v. Additional Director and others(19666 Cur. LJ- Pb 755)

has clearly held that if the aggrieved persons have not filed objections

before the C.O. or preferred appeals before the higher authorities

specified in section 21, such authorities do not have suo moto power to

change the scheme or the holdings allotted to landholders in

repartition.

30. For the view that I am taking, it is not essential for me to go

into the issue as to whether the direction "Dakshin" or "South" was, or

was not, mentioned in the original repartition proceedings dated

26.07.2000. I am also not required to decide whether or not either the

omission to mention any direction, or merely to mention "Dakshin"

tantamounted to an "omission" within the meaning of Section 43A. For

the present purpose, I am assuming that the submission of the

petitioner that there was no mention of any direction in the repartition

proceedings of 26.07.2000 is correct and also that the mere mention of

"Dakshin" in those proceedings was an "omission" since either "South-

East" or "South-West" was not mentioned.

31. As observed earlier, not every omission leads to a clerical or

arithmetical mistake. An "omission" may lead to much more than a

mere clerical or arithmetical mistake. There is much to be said on both

sides with regard to the mention of the direction "Dakshin" in the

repartition proceedings of 26.07.2000. While on the one hand the

petitioner has produced photocopy of the certified copy of the said

proceedings, which do not show the mention of "Dakshin" against the

relevant entry, respondent No.3 has produced various documents to

show that "Dakshin" was mentioned consistently in various

proceedings from 26.07.2000 onwards contemporaneously. In my

view, these are disputed questions of fact, which neither arise from the

order of the Financial Commissioner nor fall within the scope of the

proceedings for me to determine. Pertinently, despite repeated

directions to the revenue authorities given on 15.01.2008 and

18.07.2008, to produce the original records, the same has not been

produced. These issues would be determined by the competent

authorities before whom they are pending. No observation made by

me in these proceedings should influence the determination of these

factual issues.

32. I may also note that the submission of the petitioner, that the

mere mention of "Dakshin" by itself is not sufficient and that the

omission to mention "South-East" or "South-West" is an omission, does

not arise for consideration in the present case, as I am of the view that

even if it were to be assumed to be an "omission" the same has not

led to a mere "clerical or arithmetical mistake". However, I may add

that respondent No.3 has pointed out various instances from the

proceedings filed on record which show that the direction "Dakshin"

and "Uttar" have been mentioned in various other cases and it is not

that in every case directions have been further elaborated as "South-

East", "South-West", "North-East" or "North-West". It would really

depend on the facts of each case as to whether the directions have

been sufficiently disclosed or not, and it would have to be examined in

the facts of each case whether the failure to mention any or detailed

directions is an "omission". There can be no generalized hard and fast

rule in this regard.

33. I cannot accept the assertion of petitioners that they were

allotted plot No.154/819, and were put in possession of the said plot.

As evidenced from the letter dated 15.03.2003 of the petitioner

addressed to the C.O., B.D.O. Ofice complex, Narela, it is clear that till

date no authority has handed over possession of the plot to the

petitioners. A request was made to the C.O. for allotting the plot

No.819 in "West" direction as per the scheme of consolidation. In the

said application it is also admitted that till date the said plot was not

shown in their Khata.

34. The submission of the petitioner that the subsequent

allotment of 19 biswas to respondent No.3 in plot No.154/819 is illegal

since no objection was preferred by her under Section 21(2) of the Act,

is also not well founded and is beyond the scope of these proceedings,

which is to determine whether the F.C. was justified in his view that the

C.O. incorrectly invoked his powers under Section 43A of the Act while

passing the order dated 09.04.2003. If the petitioners were aggrieved

by the allotment of the said plot to respondent No.3 as being illegal,

they should have taken appropriate steps before the concerned

revenue authorities in the manner prescribed by law. I may only note

that from a perusal of the joint application made by the respondent

No.3 along with khata holders 1191, 1193 and 1195, it is seen that an

objection was raised by all these khata holders against joint plot of plot

No.500-501. A request was made to separately allot plots to these

khata haqdars independently. This application resulted into a

proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act. Thereafter, respondent

No.3 was allotted 19 biswas in plot No.154/819 on 12.12.2000. The

proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Act were, prima facie, not time

barred, as it was only vide public notice dated 23.02.2001 that

proceedings in relation to Section 21(2) of the Act were declared to be

over.

35. I do not accept the submission of respondent No.3 that the

petitioners admitted in their reply before the F.C. that the direction

"Dakshin" was mentioned in the repartition proceedings dated

26.07.2000. A careful reading of the pleading shows that the

petitioner has not made any such admission as attributed to them.

36. In view of the legal position emerging from the authorities

cited above, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Financial

Commissioner that the order of the C.O. resulted in a review of the

earlier order, as it has relocated the plots is correct. It has rightly been

held by him that if there was any grievance regarding the allotment, it

should have been addressed in appropriate proceedings. The power of

C.O. under Section 43A of the Act is only to remove the obvious clerical

or arithmetical mistake as a result of an omission in the scheme or

order. In my view Section 43A of the Act, in no circumstance, gives

jurisdiction to the C.O. to review his earlier order and relocate the plots

allotted under the scheme.

Dismissed.

(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE APRIL 08, 2009 rsk