JUDGMENT B.L. LOOMBA, J. 1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the name of Smt. Zahoora alias Jahana wife of Dalmat to challenge the legality of the order dated 20-5-1986 of the Board of Revenue (Annexure 4). An interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of this order of the Board of Revenue. Respondent no. 4 Moinuddin moved C. M. An. 14708 of 1986 seeking to have the interim stay order vacated. The matter being short, with the agreement of the parties learned counsel, they have been heard for disposal of the writ petition itself. 2. THE order of the Board of Revenue dated 20-5-1986 which is under challenge in this writ petition was passed in proceedings under sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act having been referred to the Board by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad by his order dated 1-12-1984 passed in revision against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1984 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amethi, District Sultanpur. Moinuddin, opposite party no. 4 in this writ petition, had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amethi for correction of entry in the record in respect of Khata Khatauni Nos. 31 and 183 of village Misroli, Pargana and Tahsil Amethi. The prayer made, it appears, was that the name of Shrimati Zahoora entered in the Revenue record in respect of these Khatas be corrected as Shrimati Zahoora alias Jahana widow of Dalmir. Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Amethi in his order dated 4-4-1984 mentioned that in the Khatauni relating to 1372 Fasli, the name of Shrimati Jahana as wife of Dalayar was recorded and under the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, name of Shrimati Jahana's husband was entered as Dalmat. In this way in the Khatauni for the years 1380-94 Fasli, name of Shrimati Jahana wife of Dalmat was recorded A sale deed was executed on 2-7-1975 in the name of Shrimati Zahoora widow of Dalmat alias Dalmir as vendors in favour of Moinuddin and it is on the basis of this sale deed that Moinuddin prayed for the entry as aforesaid. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer rejected this prayer of Moinuddin on the ground that the nature and scope of proceedings under sections 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act was summary and limited and meant only to correct routine and undisputed errors and the entry made in the Khatauni of 1372 Fasli under orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer could not be corrected even when the entry appeared clearly to be wrong. It was also mentioned that only a recent mistake of entry could be corrected in summary proceedings under the said provisions and an old entry existing in the Revenue record could not be corrected. Yet another ground mentioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order was that the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha were necessary parties in the proceedings under sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. 3. IN revision proceedings, the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 1-12-1984 made an appraisal of the factual position. It was stated that prior to the Consolidation operations, name of Shrimati Jahana wife of Dalmir was recorded in the Khatauni for 1356, 1359 and also from 1372 to 1374 Fasli, which was the basic year for Consolidation operations. IN respect of Khata No. 15 in the Khatauni for the year 1372 Fasli to 1374 Fasli, certain corrections were incorporated where the name of Shrimati Jahana was recorded as widow of Dalaiyar while over Khata No. 108 she continued to be shown as widow of Dalmir. On the basis of the enquiry report, Additional Commissioner found that orders of correction were not correctly carried out and instead of Dalmir word 'Dalmat' was written as husband of Shrimati Jahana. There was a compromise in Consolidation Case No. 346, State v. Jahana, according to which name of Shrimati Jahana was to be recorded over Khata no. 15 as widow of Dalmir instead of Dalaiyar. It was noticed that there was no order for recording the name of husband of Shrimati Jahana as Dalmat. IN the correction case, Dalmat son of Mahtab and Dost Mohammad son of Allahabad were parties. 15 as widow of Dalmir instead of Dalaiyar. It was noticed that there was no order for recording the name of husband of Shrimati Jahana as Dalmat. IN the correction case, Dalmat son of Mahtab and Dost Mohammad son of Allahabad were parties. Accordingly, learned Additional Commissioner observed that "thus it is evidently proved that the land in dispute has already been recorded in the name of Shrimati Jahana wife of Dalmir and it was by apparent error in incorporating the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer during Consolidation operations that Shrimati Jahana came to be recorded as widow of Dalmat instead of Dalmir. The name of husband of Shrimati Zahoora is Dalmat and the plea that Shrimati Zahora is also known as Shrimati Jahana was not accepted for purposes of these proceedings. 4. IN the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated 20-5 1986 the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner were accepted and it was further observed that the Lekhpal had made some bunglings in this case and an inquiry in the matter is under way. IN these facts the revision was accepted and application under sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was allowed. The main grounds to challenge the impugned orders are that in summary proceedings under sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, the question of title ought not to have been gone into and the proceedings were barred by section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. THE errors and omissions in the Annual Register are required to be corrected in accordance with the provisions of section 39 of the Land Revenue Act as is mentioned in section 33 thereof. An application for correction of an error or an omission in the Annual Register is required to be made to the Tahsildar and on receiving an application, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and then refer the case to the Collector who is to dispose of the same after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the Act. According to section 40, all disputes regarding entries in the Annual Register shall be decided on the basis of possession. THE term 'possession' in this section is by means of Explanation and means possession based on succession or transfer. According to section 40, all disputes regarding entries in the Annual Register shall be decided on the basis of possession. THE term 'possession' in this section is by means of Explanation and means possession based on succession or transfer. THE nature of inquiry in a dispute in this section is to be summary. 6. IN the present case, the Additional Commissioner recommended correction to be allowed on the basis of report of the inquiry made by the Tahsildar. The inquiry report had revealed that some bungling had been made in the matter and the entry in favour of Shrimati Jahana as widow of Dalmat was wrong and the error was apparent keeping in view the clear position of facts from 1356 Fasli onwards. IN other words, according to the inquiry report and the order of the Additional Commissioner, the mistake sought to be corrected was an apparent mistake and the entry sought to be corrected had crept in because of some foul play or bungling involved in the matter. IN the order of the Board of Revenue, it was also mentioned that the entry which was directed to be corrected had not been correctly made as required to be done under the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and as such an unintended and unjustified entry required to be corrected and it was a case of correcting an apparent mistake. In view of the factual position as reflected in the orders of the Additional Commissioner and that of the Board of Revenue, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue entered into and decided the questions of title between the parties. The nature of summary inquiry has, obviously, to be looked in the context of the facts of a particular case. In the instant ease, the impugned order appears clearly to be based on the inquiry report made by the Tahsildar and in the totality of facts, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. The order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is open to the aggrieved persons to raise a dispute of title in the matter. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. THE writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is open to the aggrieved persons to raise a dispute of title in the matter. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. THE writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. THE interim stay order shall stand vacated. Petition dismissed.