Judgement V.P. GUPTA, J.:- The present writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dt.14-4-1975 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner filed a civil review petition No.9 of 1975 which was disposed of on 20-12-1976 by the same Division Bench. The review order dt. 20-12-1976 reads as follows:- By this review application, the applicant, Smt. Shakuntala Kochhar, prays for review of our order dt. April 14, 1975 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.114 of 1972. It is claimed by the applicant that relief was sought in the writ petition against the recovery of Rs.8,900/- and of damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute, and that when judgment was delivered disposing of the writ petition the consideration of that relief was omitted. It is prayed that the order dismissing the aforesaid writ petition be set aside in so far as the prayer for that relief has not been considered. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have also consulted the notes recorded by us of the arguments during the hearing of the writ petition. We are satisfied that the relief mentioned above was omitted from consideration at the time when the judgment was delivered. In the circumstances, we set aside the order dismissing the aforesaid writ petition in order that the relief claimed by the applicant be considered and disposed of. We direct that the writ petition shall be restored to its original number and the case be re-listed for hearing in regard to the aforesaid relief claimed by the applicant". 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition was listed before us for decision on the limited question with respect to (a) the recovery of Rs.8900/-, and (b) damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute. 3. The facts of the case need not be stated as these have been given in detail in the order dt. 14-4-1975. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the recovery of Rs.8900/- and no arguments were addressed on this point. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief regarding the recovery of Rs.8900/- which were ordered to be recovered from the petitioner vide para 14(b) of the order dt. 14-4-1975. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the recovery of Rs.8900/- and no arguments were addressed on this point. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief regarding the recovery of Rs.8900/- which were ordered to be recovered from the petitioner vide para 14(b) of the order dt. 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) passed by Shri K. C. Pandeya, Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla, exercising powers of the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act). The petitioners petition with respect to this relief is, therefore, dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order (Annex.-P-12) dt.7-5-1973 passed by Shri L.Hmingliana Tochhwang, I.A.S. Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Simla, exercising powers of the Central Government under the Act, ordering corrections in the order passed on 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) is without Jurisdiction and the same is illegal, null and void. It is contended that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dt.12-7-1971 (Annex.-P-10) was set aside as being without jurisdiction by the Secretary to the Government who proceeded under S.33 of the Act and passed a fresh order on 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P 9) Para 14(c) of the order dt.16-6-1972 reads as follows:- "The Central Hotel (Annexe.) was misused by the purchaser of the Central Hotel (main building) from the 18th Nov.1955 onwards. Hence damages for the use of the Annexe be recovered @ Rs. 10/- per sq. yd. which I consider as the minimum reasonable rent for the same". It is contended that there was no clerical omission in the aforesaid order and it did not require any correction, addition or amendment. The addition of the wordsper annum by the Secretary to the Government vide order dt.7-5-1973 (Annex.-P-12) is unauthorised and illegal and is not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that there was a clerical omission in the order dt.16-6-1972 and without the addition of the wordsper annum in this order the same was vague and meaningless. It is contended that the omission was a clerical and accidental one, therefore, the Secretary to the Government was justified in ordering the addition of the wordsper annum. 7. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is contended that the omission was a clerical and accidental one, therefore, the Secretary to the Government was justified in ordering the addition of the wordsper annum. 7. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 19 of the Act gives power to vary or cancel leases or allotment of any property acquired under the Act. The relevant portion reads as follows:- "19. Power to vary or cancel leases or allotment of any property acquired under this Act.- (1) to (3) x x x x x x x (4) Where a managing officer or a managing Corporation is satisfied that any person, whether by way of allotment or lease, is or has at any time been in possession of any evacuee property acquired under this Act to which he was not entitled, or which was in excess of that to which he was entitled, under the law under which such allotment or lease was made or granted, then, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against that person, the managing officer or the managing corporation may, having regard to such principles of assessment of rent as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, by order, assess the rent payable in respect of such property and that person shall be liable to pay the rent so assessed for the period for which the property remains or has remained in his possession: Provided that no such order shall be made without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorized possession of any evacuee property acquired under this Act, the managing officer or the managing corporation may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such property and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order : Provided that no such order shall be made without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 9. A bare reading of S.19(4) and (5) shows that the power to assess the rent or damages is given to the managing officer or a managing corporation and before making a final order the managing officer or the managing corporation has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. 10. In the present case, according to the findings of the Secretary to the Government, the petitioner remained in unauthorized occupation of the property but the provisions of S. 19 of the Act are not applicable because the order under challenge is not passed by a managing officer or the managing corporation. 11. Further, while passing the order dt.16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) the Secretary has given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner was actually heard as is mentioned in para 10 of the order dt.16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9). The petitioner thus cannot take any benefit from the provisions of S.19 of the Act. 12. Under S.33 of the Act, the Central Government enjoys certain residuary powers which can be exercised by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to call for the records of any proceeding under the Act and can pass such orders in relation thereto as in his opinion the circumstances of the case require and as are not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder. 13. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Secretary had no powers to call for the records of these proceedings and decide the disputes under S.33 of the Act. By order dt.16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9), the Secretary called for the records of the proceedings and passed an order in relation to the property. In para 9 of the order dt. 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) it is mentioned that the Secretary was exercising the powers under S.33 of the Act. The final order with respect to the damages for use of the Annexe as stated in para 14(c) (reproduced above) is vague and uncertain because the period for which the damages have been assessed at Rs.10/- per sq. yard is not mentioned in the order. To remove this ambiguity or omission in the order dt. 16-6-1972, a separate order dt. 7-5-1973 was passed by the Secretary who took suo motu notice of this clerical omission. He ordered that the wordsper annum be added after the words"@ Rs. 10/- per sq. yard". yard is not mentioned in the order. To remove this ambiguity or omission in the order dt. 16-6-1972, a separate order dt. 7-5-1973 was passed by the Secretary who took suo motu notice of this clerical omission. He ordered that the wordsper annum be added after the words"@ Rs. 10/- per sq. yard". It was ordered that para 14(c) be now read as under :- "The Central Hotel (Annexe) was misused by the purchaser of the Central Hotel (main Building) from the 18th Nov.1955 onwards. Hence damages for the use of the annexe be recovered @ Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum which I consider as the minimum reasonable rent for the same." 14. Now, S.25 of the Act reads as follows :- "25. Review and amendment of orders.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Settlement Officer under S.5. from which no appeal is allowed under S.22, may, within thirty days from the date of the order, make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Officer for review of his order and the decision of the Settlement Officer on such application shall, subject to the provisions of S.24 and S.33, be final. (2) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by an officer or authority under this Act or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer or authority or the successor-in-office of such officer or authority". 15. In view of the provisions of S.25(2) of the Act, clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission, could be corrected at any time by the Secretary. In case the wordsper annum are not allowed to be added, then the order dt. 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) will remain vague, ambiguous and uncertain because it is not possible to find out as to how the damages for use and occupation of the Annexe are to be recovered at Rs.10/- per sq. yard from 18-11-1955 onwards. The period is not mentioned in this order dt.16-6-1972. A person could be dispossessed immediately after passing of the order or he could remain in unlawful possession for a longer period. For the period from 18-11-1955 till 16-6-1972, it is also not mentioned that Rs.10/- per sq. yard is the consolidated assessment for this whole period. yard from 18-11-1955 onwards. The period is not mentioned in this order dt.16-6-1972. A person could be dispossessed immediately after passing of the order or he could remain in unlawful possession for a longer period. For the period from 18-11-1955 till 16-6-1972, it is also not mentioned that Rs.10/- per sq. yard is the consolidated assessment for this whole period. If the intention was to assess at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard from 18-11-1955 to 16-6-1972 then in that case the Secretary could easily mention that it was for the whole of the aforesaid period of about 17 years. Thus, there is a clear omission or accidental slip in the order and therefore, it had to be corrected under the provisions of S.25(2) of the Act to make it clear and intelligible. 16. The Secretary while passing the order knew that the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dt. 12-7-1971 (Annex.-P-10) had allowed damages for use and occupation of the property of Central Hotel (Annexe.) measuring 531 sq. yards at Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum from 18-11-1955. This portion of the order is quoted in verbatim in para 4 (IV) of the order dt. 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9). It may be mentioned that the rate of damages was not challenged by the petitioner in his revision petition when she challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annex.-P-10). This matter was also not agitated before the Secretary to the Government when he exercised power under S.33 of the Act and gave a hearing to the parties because while enumerating the various point-s for consideration in para 10 of the order dt.16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9), the rate for assessing the damages is not mentioned in any of these points. A perusal of the order dt.16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) also shows that the petitioner never agitated that the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum as assessed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order Annex.-P-10 was excessive. The Secretary in fact after quashing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the technical ground of jurisdiction passed similar orders with respect to the damages for the use of the Annexe. and stated that according to him this was the minimum reasonable rent. The Secretary in fact after quashing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the technical ground of jurisdiction passed similar orders with respect to the damages for the use of the Annexe. and stated that according to him this was the minimum reasonable rent. In view of this situation we are of the opinion that the non-mentioning of the words per annum in the order dt.16-6-1972 was only due to an accidental slip or omission and the Secretary to the Government in his order dt. 16-6-1972 (Annex.-P-9) had in fact allowed the damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum. The correction made subsequently by the Secretary to the Government on 7-5-1973 vide order (Annex.-P-12) in exercise of the powers under S.25(2) of the Act is thus justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. We may also mention that except for the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Annex.-P-10) no other material was shown to us by the petitioner in proof of the fact that the assessment at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum was excessive or unreasonable. The respondents counsel showed us a letter memo. No.486/TSU dt.27-4-1982 issued by the Managing Officer (Sales) Rehabilitation Department Una, District Una to Shri Kundal Lal Ahuja C/o Narain Gheer Store, The Mall, Simla, whereby Shri Kundal Lal was directed to deposit Rs.70221/- at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum for unauthorized encroachment on khasra No. 490/62 measuring 337.6 sq. yards in Central Hotel Stable and Quarters. This amount was ordered to be paid in view of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dt.7-12-1973 for the period 15-8-1961 to 15-6-1982. 18. The petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the Annexe. of the Central Hotel from 18-11-1955 onwards and we are of the view that the assessment of Rs.10/- per sq. yard per annum was, therefore, justified and the Secretary was justified in making the corrections by way of amendment in exercise of the powers under S.25(2) of the Act. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the orders Annex.-P-12 passed by the Secretary by which the wordsper annum were added in the order dt. 16-6-1972 passed by the Secretary to the Government (Annex.-P-9) are valid and there are no grounds to quash these orders. 20. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the orders Annex.-P-12 passed by the Secretary by which the wordsper annum were added in the order dt. 16-6-1972 passed by the Secretary to the Government (Annex.-P-9) are valid and there are no grounds to quash these orders. 20. As a result of the above discussion, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner that the damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute have been wrongly assessed, is also disallowed. The writ petition for the remaining reliefs has already been dismissed on 14-4-1975. Now by this order the writ petition is dismissed with respect to the other two reliefs which were allowed to be agitated by the petitioner vide order dt.20-12-1976 on the review application. Petition dismissed.