ORDER Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.8.1983 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The aforesaid order dated 18.8.1983 was passed on an application/petition filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in which it was alleged that a mistake was committed during the consolidation to the effect that Killa No. 108//18/1 (7 kanals 6 marlas), which belong to the aforesaid applicants and which was allotted to them by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 22.11.1958 was wrongly shown in the Khata of contesting respondents, whereas those persons were given Killa No. 115//18 (8 kanals 0 marlas) and that Killa No. was wrongly shown in their Khata. 3. On the aforesaid application, the Director Consolidation issued notice to the respondents and called for the record of the consolidation. After providing an opportunity of hearing, it was found that Killa No. 108//18/1 was wrongly shown in the Khata of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Actually, they were allotted Killa No. 115//18 (8 kanals 0 marlas) which was wrongly shown in the khata of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Therefore, a correction was ordered by taking out an area of 108//18/1 (7 kanals 6 marlas) from the Khata of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and in lieu of that, they were given Killa No. 115//18 (8 kanals 0 marla). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case. 5. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings is specifically empowered under Section 43-A of the Act to make correction of a factual mistake in the revenue record at any time. Section 43-A of the Act is reproduced below :- "43-A. Correction of clerical errors. - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a Scheme made or an order passed by any Officer, under this Act arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." 6. - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a Scheme made or an order passed by any Officer, under this Act arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." 6. Thus, the Director, Consolidation is clearly empowered under the aforesaid Section to make correction of clerical errors at any time on an application filed by any of the parties or otherwise. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions regarding improper and illegal exercise of its jurisdiction by the Director, Consolidation. Firstly, he submitted that the jurisdiction was exercised after 25 years of the alleged mistake and secondly that in the civil dispute between the parties, it was found that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are in actual physical possession of Killa No. 108//18/1, therefore, due to the long period 25 years, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have perfected their title on the said Killa No. by adverse possession. 7. I do not find any force in either of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners. As far as the period is concerned, the Director, Consolidation can make correction of clerical errors at any time. There is no limitation prescribed for correcting the mistake in the consolidation under Section 43-A of the Act. Secondly, when the mistake in the revenue record is not disputed, then the question of adverse possession will not arise. Merely, because at earlier point of time, the parties were litigating in the Civil Court, does not debar the Director, Consolidation from correcting the mistake in the record of the consolidation when the mistake is apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, in the instant case, no injustice has been done to either parties. Killa No. 108//18/1 measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas has been taken away from the Khata of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and in lieu thereof, they were given Killa No. 115//18 measuring 8 kanals 0 merla, which is more than the area taken from the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.