JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 6-2-1976, the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 9-12-1975 may be set aside and the application dated 3-9-1975 from the Pradhan Gaon Sabha be rejected. 2. None appeared for the applicant in spite of due notice and I have heard the learned DGC (R) and have also perused the record. 3. It was a simple case under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act decided on 19-1-1972 and ejectment order against the revisionist from plot Nos. 917 and 249 was passed, but by mistake parwana dakhal in favour of the Gaon Sabha included only plot number 249 and so dakhal to Gaon Sabha of plot number 917 was left out. So, the Pradhan applied on 3-9-1975 for issuing correct parwana dakhal and the revisionist objected to it on the grounds of limitation and mistake of the Gaon Sabha but the learned trial court overruled the objection and ordered issue of parwana dakhal for number 917 also. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner in the revision has held that if dakhal was left out, the Pradhan Gaon Sabha had to apply within 3 years and so no correct dakhalnama could be issued now and the application had to be rejected. 5. I find some misconceptions behind the above views. Firstly, it has to be accepted that these are summary proceedings meant to provide speedy remedy to the problem of unauthorised occupation on the Gaon Sabha land in the face of failure of the LMC or the local-body to take any action for ejectment, damages etc. It must be understood that the Collector takes action under sub-sections (3) to 4-D of the Act only when the LMC or the local authority has failed. The law provides these summary proceedings in the absence of the usual first party and there is no justification for insisting that the first party must be there. Obviously, the law requires and casts on the Collector this responsibility which in a normal suit would be the plaintiffs responsibility. No doubt, the intention of the legislature is that orders under Section 122-B (3) and (4) be passed and implemented without an action by the Gaon Sabha or the LMC or the local authority. 6. This intention is clear from reading the sub-sections (3) and (4). No doubt, the intention of the legislature is that orders under Section 122-B (3) and (4) be passed and implemented without an action by the Gaon Sabha or the LMC or the local authority. 6. This intention is clear from reading the sub-sections (3) and (4). Under sub-section (3), the Collector sends show cause notice to the unauthorised occupant and if no cause is shown or cause shown is insufficient, the Collector under sub-section (4) may direct eviction of such person and he may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may also direct that the amount of compensation be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. There is no provision to hear the Gaon Sabha/LMC/local authority and all enquiry must be done by the Collector himself. 7. Further, there is no provision for any execution proceedings following the order under Section 122-B (4). These summary proceedings are self-contained, and include implementation of the orders also, without any need of formal execution proceedings as are necessary in regular suits. This is consistent also with the provision in (3) and (4); for when there is no plaintiff or first party, it follows that there is none to apply for any execution or even to implement the order of eviction. There is also no requirement of law for any application by any one to implement the orders. Since no separate execution proceedings are needed to implement the order passed under Section 122-B (4) of the Act and since the Collector in the same continuation has to implement the orders passed, there is no question of any limitation. In fact, the eviction order, fixation of compensation/damages, recovery of possession and delivery to the Gaon Sabha and realisation of compensation as arrears of land revenue must be deemed one proceeding which continues till its final conclusion. 8. In the above background, the misconception cherished by the learned Additional Commissioner while making the reference dated 6-2-1976 become evident. The learned trial court should have corrected the parwana dakhal under Section 152 C.P.C. as it was an obvious clerical mistake. No doubt, the order dated 19-1-1972 had become final and the learned trial court had full jurisdiction to conclude the implementation to its logical end. The learned trial court should have corrected the parwana dakhal under Section 152 C.P.C. as it was an obvious clerical mistake. No doubt, the order dated 19-1-1972 had become final and the learned trial court had full jurisdiction to conclude the implementation to its logical end. The process would not be completed till eviction from both plots, with use of necessary force if so required, was ensured. 9. Since the application dated 3-9-1975 by the Pradhan was a mere additional precaution to ensure lawful proceedings, there is no question to reject the same. The learned trial court acted rightly by rejecting the objections of the revisionist. No limitation was involved and there was no stage to pass time in entertaining such frivolous objections. For these considerations, I find no justification to accept the reference. 10. The revision petition is found to be without force and is hereby dismissed with costs. The learned trial court may now proceed to complete the action without delay. The records be returned.