P L D 1976 Lahore 269 (PLP)

The only question in this petition is whether the Board of Revenue while exercising jurisdiction under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, has any inherent power to correct a clerical or typographical error in its judgments or whether its power to make such correction is circumscribed by the substantive provisions of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act.

2. The facts of this case are that the Collector Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) confirmed on 26-4-1963, the scheme of consolidation of land in village Bhawalpur, Tehsil Kabirwala, Distrtict Multan, referred to him by the Consolidation Officer, under section 10 of he Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. An appeal against the order was filed by Abdul Razzaq respondent No. 2 which was dismissed by Mr. Ghulam Shabbir, Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan on 20-5-1963 (Annexure 'A'). It was urged in appeal by Abdul Razzaq that to consolidate his area which he held in compact blocks in square No. 46 and 45 he should have been given Killa No.

18. A complaint was made in that appeal against the present petitioner that he had been shown undue favour by being given 1st Class land in Squares Nos. 30 and 45 in lieu of his 3rd Class land in Square No.

53. The Additional Commissioner did not agree with these submissions and held that no injustice was done to Abdul Razzaq.

3. Abdul Razzaq challenged this order by a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue. (vide copy of the grounds of revision Annexure 'B'). One of the suggestions made by him in the grounds of revision was that "the land comprising of Killa Nos. 8, 13, 18 and 2/2 of Square No. 45 could be given to the petitioner and in lieu thereof land comprising of Killa No. 2 and 3 of Square No. 54 and Killa Nos. 23 and 24/1 of Square No. 45 could be included in the Wanda of the respondent".

4. The member, Board of Revenue took note of this proposal in the fourth paragraph of his judgment (Annexure 'C') dated the 27th August 1963, and ultimately held as follows:- "Having considered all the aspects of the case I feel that, while the claim of the petitioner about Killa Nos. 8, 13 and 18 of Sq. No. 45 is justified, he should not be given Killa No. 2/2 of the same Square, because that would create an awkward block. In these circumstances, the following adjustments are the most equitable and shall be given effect to:- (a) Killa Nos. 8, 13 & 18 of Sq. No. 45 (measuring in all 24 kanals) shall be withdrawn from the respondent and given to the petitioner; and (b) the respondent will be compensated by withdrawing Killa No. 14/1 '(3 Kanals 4 Marlas) and Killa No. 23 of Square No. 45 as well as Killa No. 3 of Sq. No. 45 and 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land from the eastern portion of Killa No. 2 of Sq. No. 54 from the petitioner and giving this area of 24 Kanals to the respondent."

5. Mutation proceedings were taken by the Assistant Collector-II on 18-1-1964 in order to implement the order of the Board of Revenue. At that time a clerical error in the judgment of the Board of Revenue came to the notice of the Revenue Officer. It appears that the Board of Revenue had agreed with the above suggestion of Abdul Razzaq with the exception of his claim to Killa No. 2/2, yet by a typographical error Killa 14/1 was shown as given to the petitioner in place of Killa No. 24/1. The petitioner's plea is that Killa No. 14/1 is already in his possession and had been given to him under the Scheme originally confirmed by the Collector. In view of this that Killa could not have been given to him in lieu of the area withdrawn from him by the Board of Revenue. Faced with this situation the Assistant Collector referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for correction of the error. The Board of Revenue, however, declined to act on this reference. The Assistant Collector, therefore, omitted a reference both to Killa No. 14/1 and Killa No. 24/1 in the area mutated in the name of Muhammed Shibli Khan. As a result of this omission he sanctioned mutation of an area of 20 Kanals 16 Marlas only comprising of Killa No. 23 of Square No. 45 (8 Kanlas), Killa No. 2/2 (4 Kanals 16 Marlas) and Killa No. 3 (8 Kanals of Square No. 54 in favour of the petitioner thus depriving him of an area of 3 Kanals 4 Marlas. On the other hand he sanctioned the mutation of entire 24 Kanals of area in Killas No. 8, 13 and 18 of Square No. 45 in favour of the Respondent. In the revisional order of the Board of Revenue an equal area of 24 Kanals was to be withdrawn from the petitioner and Abdul Razzaq but on account of the refusal of the Board of Revenue to correct what appears to be a mere typographical error, an area of only 20 Kanals 16 Marlas was withdrawn from Abdul Razzaq as against an area of 24 Kanals withdrawn from the petitioner thus making Abdul Razzaq a double gainer.

6. For this reason Muhammad Shibli Khan petitioner filed a Review Petition but the same was dismissed by Mr. I. U. Khan. Member Board of Revenue, on the 23rd June 1964, as barred by 90 days, limitation. He held that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, The injustice done to the petitioner is thus likely to be perpetuated if the order of review is allowed to stand.

7. Hence this writ petition.

8. It is no doubt true that under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act a period of limitation is fixed for review but it can apply only to a matter falling within the ambit of that section. Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act confers power of review on the Board of Revenue. This power is exercisable on application based on ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record or for any other sufficient reason. These grounds clearly indicate what power of review is exercisable only if modification or annulment is sought of that has been done consciously by the Board of Revenue. Section 8 cannot be invoked where the conscious order of the Board of Revenue is in favour of the petitioner but on account of some error committed by some official of the Board of Revenue the order does not reflects what was announced or what was required to be conveyed to the parties. In short it does not provide for rectification of any inadvertent or accidental slip or omis sion. Such an error can be corrected by a Court or Authority even if there is no power of review vested in it. Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, is in pari materia with rule 1 of Order XLVII, C. P. C. That Code recognises the difference between (i) review (ii) correction of arithmetical and clerical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders arisin therein from any accidental slip or omission. Power of review is conferred by section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1 but provision for correcting arithmetical or clerical mistakes in judgments or orders have been mad separately in section

152. Superior Courts have taken resort to inherent powers to correct such errors. P L D 1954 Pesh. 67 is a case in point. In that case Khasra Nos. 2112-2118 were wrongly and inadvertently described as 1212-1218 in the plaint. This error persisted in decree, appeal and revision proceedings. It was held that the mistake could be corrected under inherent jurisdiction. In Rashida Begum v. Ghulam Farid P L D 1973 Lah. 637 also it was held that where error in decree occurred due to error in pleading, the Court has power to amend the decree without amendment of pleadings. In Wazir Begum v. Noor Jehan P L D 1961 Kar. 165 a final decree was passed instead of a preliminary decree. The mistake was corrected. In Merwan Rustomji Kharas and another v. Pakistan Motor Owners Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. P L D 1964 Kar. 625 it was held that it is open to a Court where a consent decree is not in conformity with the compromise on which it is based to bring it in conformity with the terms of compromise by resort to inherent power of the Court which are saved by section 151, C. P. C. It is unnecessary to pile up cases of this type which are numerous. The principle is well established that where a decree is manifestly at variance with the purpose or intent with which it is passed, it can be made by correction, to conform to that purpose or intent, Perpetuation of the mistake committed by the Court or its office may lead to abuse of the process of Court which must be avoided at all cost. See The Bolivar AIR 1916 P C 85 and Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Habib Shah I L R 35 All. 331 and Mul Raj v. Bura Mal A I R 1931 Lah. 344.

9. The vindication of the power of the Court to correct its Owl' perceptibly clear clerical errors or accidental slip or omission also lies in the well recognised principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man). This maxim as observed by Cresswell, J., in Freeman v. Tranah 12 C B 406 is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law.

10. The distinction between review on one hand and correction of clerical errors or arithmetical error on the other implied in the Code Civil Procedure and the numerous authoritative pronouncements of Superior Courts can be applied advantageously to the interpretation of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act which as stated above is in pari materia wit Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. The following statement in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, page 33, supports this mode of interpreta tion:- "Probably the rule as to the exposition of one Act by the language of another is satisfactorily and most comprehensively laid down in the broad statement of Lord Mansfield, that where there are different statutes in pari materia, though made at different times, or even expired and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system and explanatory of each other." Again at page 330 of Maxwell it is stated; "It has, indeed, been said that, generally, statutes in pari materia ought to receive a uniform construction, notwithstanding any slight variation of phrase, the object and intention being the same."

11. If the concept of review is extended to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slip or omission, it will be impossible to a Court or authority to rectify such mistakes where powers of review are not conferred upon it. Right of review like a right of appeal is al substantive right and is not available unless it is expressly conferred by statute. Hussian Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner P L D 1970 S C 1, Maqsoodan Bibi v. Bhano P L D 1965 Lah. 183, Muhammad Hassan v. Mehraj Din P L D 1973 Lah. 95 In the absence of power of review the Court or authority will be rendered powerless to do justice or to redress wrong done to a party by its own clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The order passed by the Court or authority may in some cases be absolutely nullified by the clerical or typographical error that may result from some inadvertent act or omission This is not the scope of review Review like appeal or revision is a step towards correction of any decision of fact or law given by a Court or judicial or quasi judicial authority. But where there is no possibility in contemplation of the alteration of the decision, the proceedings cannot be review. In correcting a clerical or arithmetical error the Court or authority makes by correction the decision to be in conformity with the order passed. I am, therefore, of the view that mere correction of any clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment of the Board of Revenue is not within the ambit of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act.

12. The Board of Revenue has diverse functions to perform. Sometimes it acts as a Court and sometimes as a quasi-judicial Tribunal. While dealing with consolidation cases which involve allotment of different plots, to different persons, the Board of Revenue acts in a quasi -judicial capacity. Does it therefore have any inherent power to correct such mistakes? This question was considered in Khair Muhammed v. Abdul Quddus P L D 1965 Kar.

367. No finding on the point was given but the Court was impressed by the argument that if the power of Rent Controller (who as held in Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1965 S C 459 is a quasi judicial Tribunal) to correct obvious and patent errors is not recognised, then his own work will become extremely arduous and sometimes impracticable. A full Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan in Muhammad Aslam v. Khurshid Begum P L D 1972 Lah. 603 has recognized the inherent power of the Rent Controller to set aside orders passed in default of appearance of the parties. If power to correct clerical or arithmetical errors is not implied as inherent in the quasi-judicial Tribunals it may as seen above, have the effect of nullifying by an unconscious or inadvertent act or omission an order passed consciously in favour of one party or against the other. This power is specifically recognised in certain statutes e. g. Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. But the omission to make specific provisions does not negate the power which as held by me is implied and inherent in every quasi judicial authority including the Board of Revenue.

13. The Board of Revenue while passing the order dated the 23rd June 1964 (Annexure 'E') has refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law and has thus acted without lawful authority. The said order is, therefore, quashed. The Board of Revenue shall now treat the application for review of the petition as an application for correction of a clerical error and decide it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. S. Q. Petition accepted.