PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. By means of present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 7. 8. 2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Phoolpur, Azamgarh and the orders dated 17. 12. 1981 and 11. 8. 1997 passed by Consolidation Of ficer, Phoolpur, Azamgarh. 2. The facts of the case lie in a nar row compass. By means of the impugned orders, chak road of Village Bharchakiya, Tehsil r Phoolpur, District Azamgarh has been abolished. In the consolidation operation, a circular chak road on old Aaraji No. 1041, 1046 and 1047 was provided. An applica tion dated 23. 9. 1981 after the close of the consolidation operation purported to be on behalf of the petitioner and other six per sons was filed under section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with the request to abolish the said chak road of Gata No. 1044. It appears that on the basis of the said application, there being no ob jection by anybody, the authority con cerned passed one line order to the effect that since there is no dispute, the Talika is amended by taking away the chak road from Plot Nos. 1046 and 1047. The peti tioner filed an application to recall the aforesaid order dated 17th of December, 1981. The Gaon Sabha also filed an appli cation to recall the aforesaid order. The said applications have been dismissed by a common order dated 11. 8. 1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer which has been confirmed in Revision No. 826 of 1997 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Challenging the aforesaid two orders the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities below have exceeded in their jurisdiction by entertaining and granting application under section 42-A of U. P Con solidation of Holdings Act after the close of the consolidation operation in the Village. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that the signature of the petitioner on the said application was forged and he did not file any such application. The contesting respondents have grabbed the public land by getting the circular road abolished. The abolition of the circular road has caused inconvenience to the villagers in general and to the petitioner in particular. 4. The contesting respondents have grabbed the public land by getting the circular road abolished. The abolition of the circular road has caused inconvenience to the villagers in general and to the petitioner in particular. 4. The learned Counsel for the re spondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that Consoli dation Authorities have power to widen the chak road even after denotification as held in Ram Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1971 RD 499. 5. Considered the respective sub mission of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Section 42-A of this Act read as follows: "42-A. Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error appar ent on the face of the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall, either on his own motion, or on the application of any person inter ested, correct the same. " 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that under the said section only an error apparent on the face of record can be corrected. Firstly, there should be an error in the order and the said error should be apparent. The said section does not empower the consolidation authori ties after the close of the consolidation opera tion to reconsider a matter on any other ground. 8. In the guise of correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, consolidation authorities cannot re-open a matter. A very limited jurisdiction under section 42-A of the Act has been given to the consolidation authori ties which can be exercised on the fulfillment of the fact that there is a clerical or arithmeti cal error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, the said section does not empower consolidation authorities to enter tain any application and decide a dispute so raised therein on merits, afresh. 9. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is but obvious that in none of the impugned orders, any of the authorities has recorded any finding that there is an error clerical or arithmetical in the earlier order. 9. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is but obvious that in none of the impugned orders, any of the authorities has recorded any finding that there is an error clerical or arithmetical in the earlier order. They have passed the order without keep ing in view the limited jurisdiction given to them under the aforestated section namely 42-A of the Act. In passing the impugned orders, the authorities below have ex ceeded their jurisdiction. 10. It may also be placed on record that Gaon Sabha was also aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and it had filed an application to recall the earlier order dated 17. 12. 1981 which was passed without issuing any notice to it. 11. Viewed as above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 7. 8. 2000, 17. 12. 1981 and 11. 8. 1997 are hereby quashed and the application filed under section 42-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Annexure-1) stands rejected with costs. Petition Allowed. .