JUDGMENT J.N. DUBEY, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20/21st June, 1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow Camp at Meerut passed under section 42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. IT appears that the petitioners possessed agricultural land in two villages, namely, Noorpur and Barka Arifpur in the district of Meerut. Both these villages were brought under the Consolidation Scheme. The tenure-holders were put into possession of their new chaks after the finalisation of the Consolidation scheme while the possession of the chaks of village Noorpur was delivered to the tenure-holders in 1969. The possession of the chaks of village Barka Arifpur was delivered in 1971. The petitioners also got possession of their new chaks along with other tenure-holders in the same year and since then they are in possession thereof. No objection was filed against the chaks of the petitioners by any tenure-holder of the village. However, on 16-3-1974, long after the finalisation of the Consolidation scheme an application purporting to be under section 42-A of the Act was moved by the opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, claiming that during consolidation operation a Gul was provided in the north of chaks nos. 94, 209 and 239 in Noorpur which was subsequently closed by the petitioners. IT was prayed that Gul be restored back. In the alternative, IT was stated that if no Gul was provided during the Consolidation scheme a provision for a new Gul be made forthwith. The Settlement Officer Consolidation sent the application to the Consolidation Officer for his comments, who in turn, directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to submit his report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report to the Consolidation Officer on 18-3-1974, stating that no Gul was provided during Consolidation scheme in chaks nos. 94, 209 and 239 as claimed by the opposite parties nos. 4 and 5 but a Gul could be provided in chaks nos. 822, 846 and 848 of village Barka Arifpur to avoid inconvenience to the tenure-holders. 3. THE petitioners on coming to know of the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer on 10-4-1974, claiming, inter alia, that no new Gul could be provided after finalisation of the Consolidation scheme under section 42-A of the Act. 822, 846 and 848 of village Barka Arifpur to avoid inconvenience to the tenure-holders. 3. THE petitioners on coming to know of the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer on 10-4-1974, claiming, inter alia, that no new Gul could be provided after finalisation of the Consolidation scheme under section 42-A of the Act. THE Consolidation Officer, however, forwarded the papers to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 8-5-1974 with the recommendation to make a reference under section 48 (3) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation in his turn made a reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 (3) of the Act on 13-6-1974 and directed the parties to appear before him on 15-6-1974. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the reference on 21-6-1974. 4. FEELING aggrieved the petitioners have come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that no new Gul could be legally provided after finalisation of the consolidation scheme under section 42-A or even under section 48 (3) of the Act. According to him section 42-A empowers the consolidation authorities to correct a clerical and arithmetical errors apparent on the face of record. As there existed no such error, the application was liable to be rejected. The Deputy Director of Consolidation travelled beyond his jurisdiction in providing a new Gul under section 42-A of the Act. 5. IN order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners section 42-A of the Act is quoted below:- "42-A. 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 face 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 interested, correct the same." 6. SECTION 42-A of the Act empowers the consolidation authorities to correct a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record existing in any document prepared under the provisions of the Act. SECTION 42-A of the Act empowers the consolidation authorities to correct a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record existing in any document prepared under the provisions of the Act. Undisputedly no Gul was provided in the chaks in question during the consolidation operation and, therefore, there was no question of there being any clerical or arithmetical error in the record prepared by the consolidation authorities which could be corrected under section 42-A of the Act. In my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to provide a new Gul in the chaks in question either under section 42-A or section 48 (3) of the Act. These provisions are meant for correcting clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record existing in any document prepared under the provisions of the Act and do not empower the consolidation authorities to correct the mistake committed by them in preparation of the consolidation scheme, as such by not providing a Gul or a chak road. 7. IN Master Construction Company v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047 , the Supreme Court while interpreting a similar provision of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules said:- "The Commissioner of Sales Tax may at any time correct any arithmetical or clerical mistakes or any error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order passed by him, or it". Rule 83 provides a summary remedy within a narrow compass. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under this rule is limited and is confined only to the correction of mistakes or omission mentioned therein. 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 question 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. 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 expression are construed, they cannot countenance a re-argument on merits on questions of facts or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance. If that was the scope of R. 83 the question is whether the Commissioner's order is within its scope." 8. IN Ganga Prasad v. Consolidation Officer, 1966 RD 283, this Court while interpreting section 42-A of the said Act said- "What can be corrected is a clerical or arithmetical error and not an error in the decision. The Consolidation Officer could not have corrected, revised or reviewed the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in this connection. Giving effect to the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation cannot be treated as a clerical or arithmetical error, simply because the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) happened to grant a chak to one of the petitioners in excess of what he was legally entitled to. That may be an error of decision. It cannot be said to be a clerical or arithmetical error." In Daya Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 ACJ 568, this Court held that under section 42-A of the Act the Consolidation authorities can correct only clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of record and further that a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing of a document. 9. IN Ram Murat v. Mata Saran, 1982 ALJ 394, this Court again examined the scope of section 42-A of the Act and held as under:- "IN this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) annexnre-4 dated 19-12-1978 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. IN Ram Murat v. Mata Saran, 1982 ALJ 394, this Court again examined the scope of section 42-A of the Act and held as under:- "IN this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) annexnre-4 dated 19-12-1978 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. The application filed by the opposite party No. 1 for providing a chak road to chak of his father was also incompetent and not maintainable, as no chak road could be provided to any individual tenure-holder in exercise of power under section 42-A of the Act." 10. THE impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained even under section 48 (3) of the Act. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power under section 48 (3) of the Act to make alteration in chak by providing chak road or Gul to any individual tenure-holder. In Sripat v. Haridwar, 1980 RD 107, this Court said- "No provision has been pointed out under the Act or the Rules framed under the Act for providing a Rasta and Nali to any private tenure-holder. In the absence of any specific provision under the Act or the Rules framed under the Act for any act to be done by any authority, nothing can be done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his powers under section 48 (3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the application of the petitioner for providing Rasta and Nali from one chak to the other where he has got his pumping set was not maintainable." 11. IN Ram Murat v. Mata Saran (supra) this Court further held as under:- The Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under section 48 (1) or cl. (3) could consider the legality or propriety or correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities or proceedings taken by them. He cannot in exercise of power under section 48 (3) nor under section 42-A interfere with the consolidation scheme and cannot make any alteration in the chaks of the tenure-holders by providing chak road or nali to any individual tenure-holders for which there is no provision under the Act." 12. IN my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of the record in providing a new Gul in the chaks in question. IN my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of the record in providing a new Gul in the chaks in question. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 20/21st June, 1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their costs. Petition allowed.