Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. By filing this petition, Bhola Singh petitioner has sought quashing of the orders dated 22.12.2000,, 19.2.2002 and 7.3.2005 passed by the district collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner respectively. All the three revenue authorities decided the matter with regard to (clerical)correction of mutation no.1942 which had been sanctioned on 30.1.1990. 2. Admitted facts are that in a suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no.4 who is related to him, the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, barnala, passed a consent decree on 1.2.1985, declaring the petitioner to be owner of 11/156th share in the total land measuring 617 kanals 4 marlas. Mutation no.1942 was sanctioned in this regard on 30.1.1990, wherein, somehow, 1/6th share, in place of 11/156th, was mutated in the name of the petitioner. The same position was, consequently, reflected in the jamabandis for the years 1992-93 and 1997-98 also. The matter was raked up, later on, and the revenue authorities right upto the financial Commissioner ordered the correction of mutation no.1942, vide the impugned order, so as to bring it in consonance with the verdict of civil court 3. According to the learned counsel, the impugned orders dated 22.12.2000, 19.2.2002 and 7.3.2005, Annexures P1 to P3 respectively, are wrong illegal, and liable to be set aside, as the correction of the mutation entries which stood incorporated in jamabandis also, could be ordered by the civil court only, and not by the revenue authorities. 4. The position that on the basis of the civil court decree dated 1.2.1985, only 11/156th share, and not 1/6th share, in the total land, could be mutated in the name of the petitioner, has not been disputed. But, it was contended by the learned counsel that since entries in the mutation had been incorporated in the jamabandis also, orders of revenue authorities for the correction of mutation were unauthorised, illegal and as such liable to be quashed. There is, to our mind, no merit in the petition. As is clear from the above facts, it was only due to a clerical mistake that while sanctioning mutation no.1942 on the basis of civil court decree dated 1.2.1985, 1/6th share in the total land was mutated in the name of the petitioner, as against the 11/156th share, given to him in the decree. As is clear from the above facts, it was only due to a clerical mistake that while sanctioning mutation no.1942 on the basis of civil court decree dated 1.2.1985, 1/6th share in the total land was mutated in the name of the petitioner, as against the 11/156th share, given to him in the decree. No doubt, para 7.30 of the Punjab Land Records Manual provides that when an entry has been incorporated in the jamabandi, the same cannot be corrected by the revenue authorities, but it makes an exception in respect of correction of a clerical error. In other words, a clerical error in a mutation can be corrected by the revenue authorities, even if the entry in the mutation stands incorporated in the jamabandi also. 5. The mistake due to which 1/6th share was mutated in the name of the petitioner, as against 11/156th share awarded to him in the civil court decree, was, undoubtedly, a clerical one. The revenue authorities were, therefore, well within their rights to correct the same, at their own level, and this is what they have done. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed in limine, and we order accordingly.