JUDGMENT A.N. Saigal, Chairman. - I have heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. 2. There are three averments - (i) On penalf of the Gaon Sabha that the land in question was of Gaon Samaj and it was entered as Gaon Samaj property as per record, (ii) the other is that it had always been a school and had been entered over three plots in the khatauni, which does not include plot no. 126, and (iii) On behalf of the revisionists that they were entered bhumidhars with non-transferable rights by valid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in proceedings under section 122-B(4) (F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Amaldramad was made on this basis. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer visited the spot and found that the revisionists were never in possession and hence correction could be made. 3. It has been averred by the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) for the Gaon Samaj that correction can be made because the order passed under section 122-B-(4) (F) of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not a decree, but is only a deeming provision and, therefore, the ruling of the Board relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists 1943 R.D. (Netra Singh v. Trilok Singh) 417-18 is not applicable to the fact of the present case. In the case reported in the aforesaid ruling, it was held by Sri S.N. Sathe, Member, that "names entered in the patwari papers as a result of a judicial order in mutation proceedings cannot be expunged in miscellaneous correction of papers proceedings at the instance of a party in whose favour there is no order of any court." 4. In the case reported in the aforesaid ruling, it was held by Sri S.N. Sathe, Member, that "names entered in the patwari papers as a result of a judicial order in mutation proceedings cannot be expunged in miscellaneous correction of papers proceedings at the instance of a party in whose favour there is no order of any court." 4. Section 122-B-(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in section 132) having occupied it from before 30th June 1985 and the land so occupied together with, land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidbar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under section 195". 5. In the present case, a lawful order had been passed by the then Sub-Divisional Officer. The question that arises for consideration is whether these are judicial proceedings. Para 911 of the Revenue Manual specifies Sections under which the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act shall be considered to be judicial. This includes correction in map and filled book (khasra) under Section 28, mutations in cases of succession or transfer under Sections 35 and 40, settlement of boundary disputes under Section 41 and 51 and other disputed cases relating to entries in the record of rights and annual registers under Section 39, 40, 42, 43, and 54. Therefore, if a correction in the khatauni has been made, as it seems to have been done from the record, it is covered by Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and hence it is judicial proceeding in terms of para 911-(d) of the Revenue Manual. So, to say that it is only an enabling provision is not strictly correct. Even if it is not only a mistake but a blunder, correction of an entry based on a judicial or quasi-judicial order would be possible only by a regular suit in terms of the Boards ruling, quoted above. So, to say that it is only an enabling provision is not strictly correct. Even if it is not only a mistake but a blunder, correction of an entry based on a judicial or quasi-judicial order would be possible only by a regular suit in terms of the Boards ruling, quoted above. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 1972 R.D. pages 228-231 (Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue) that proceedings under rule 115-N of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules concerning auction of abadi site are judicial in nature. The Full Bench of the Board in their ruling reported in 1990 R.D. page 279 Smt. Jagrani Prakash Narain v. State of U.P. has held that proceedings under rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules are judicial in nature. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that an order passed under Section 122-B-(4-I) of the U.P. Zimidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are executive in nature. In any case, the remedy tin to hi found by regular suit. It is not a clerical error. Clerical error may be committed by a lekhpal or any other official in the course of maintenance of record. In the present case, evidence was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer during the course of proceedings under Section 122-B(4-F) and then a valid order was passed. It is clearly a judicial order. Therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner erred in law in holding that as the Sub-Divisional Officer had visited the spot the matter could be decided in a correction case. 1, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner and of the Sub-Divisional Officer and direct that the records be corrected accordingly in terms of orders dated 30-9-1988 passed by the S.D.O. in case no. 5/5/9, dated 30 5-1989 passed by the S.D.O. in case no. 25 and dated 30-9-1977 passed in case no. 26 in favour of Basanti and others. It will be open to the Gaon Sabha and the O.P. to file a regular suit if they so like.