JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 30-6-1984 through which he has recommended that the order of the S.D.O. dated 30-9-1980 be set aside. 2. The facts in brief are that a case arose between the parties during consolidation operations and the same was decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of the compromise. 3. It is alleged by the revisionist that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not properly implemented and a mistake was committed in the form C.H. 23, hence an application for correction was made before the Sub-Divisional Officer to make the entries correct in accordance with the order of the Assistance Consolidation Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected that application holding that it did not fall within the review of Sections 33 and 39 of the L.R. Act. On revision the learned Addl. Commissioner held that the mistake in the papers was deserved to be rectified and it could be done under Sections 33/39 of L.R. Act. He has, therefore, recommended to this court for allowing the revision and for ordering the entries to be corrected in according with the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 31-8-1970. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the revisionist should go in a regular suit to seek his remedy and that his application could not lie under Sections 33/39 of L.R. Act and that the entries have become final. 6. I do not agree with this argument. Only such entries made during the consolidation operation which have been legally or correctly made for presentation of correctness is attached to them under Section 27 of the C.H. Act but where an apparent mistake has crent in the entry of C.H. Form 23, such mistake can be rectified by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 33/39 of the L.R. Act, since the duty of maintenance of correct valid reason the Collector after the consolidation set aside. The finding of the learned S.D.O. that he was not competent to make correction in these proceedings was wrong and, therefore, his order was beyond jurisdiction. 7. In these circumstances this revision is allowed and the reference is accepted. The finding of the learned S.D.O. that he was not competent to make correction in these proceedings was wrong and, therefore, his order was beyond jurisdiction. 7. In these circumstances this revision is allowed and the reference is accepted. Accordingly the order of the S.D.O. dated 30-9-1980 is set aside and the entries are ordered to be corrected as per order of the A.C.O. dated 31-8-1970.