Krishna Murari, J.;- Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava for the respondent. 2. This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Petitioner is chak holder no. 515 whereas the contesting respondent is chak-holder of chak no.514. Admittedly, both the chaks are adjacent to each other. Vide order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer the chak of the petitioner was disturbed against which he went up in appeal, which was allowed in part vide order dated 22.2.1995. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision. The main grievance of the petitioner was that his chak has been made longitudinal and its width is only 23.5 meter as such it was unfit for cultivation and it should be made rectangular. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, with the consent of the parties, their chaks were amalgamated and the petitioner was allotted chak on the southern side whereas the answering respondent was allotted chak on the northern side and accordingly amendment chart was prepared. After sometime contesting respondent moved an application on the allegation that the amendment chart is not in accordance with the judgement and due to mistake the chak allotted to him on the northern portion has been valued at 60 paise whereas the valuation of the said land is 40 paise on account of which his area has been substantially reduced and the same may be corrected. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that due to clerical mistake the northern portion allotted in the chak of the petitioner in amendment chart has been valued at 60 paise whereas it should be only 40 paise, allowed the application. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order for which the consolidation authorities have no power or jurisdiction. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & others, 1997(88) RD 562 wherein it has been held that the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review and therefore, cannot reopen any proceedings or cannot review or revise earlier order. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. 5. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The question which arises for consideration is whether the impugned order correcting a clerical mistake which has crept in the amendment chart amounts to review of the earlier order. The Full Bench of this Court in the Case of Smt. Shivraji (Supra) while holding that the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review has held that as a judicial or quasi judicial authority the power to correct a clerical mistake or arithmetical error in exercise of inherent power as a Tribunal is there. It may be relevant to quote the paragraph 36 of the judgement which reads as under : “Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and therefore, his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal.” 7. In the facts of the present case only a clerical error which had crept in amendment chart, has been corrected. A comparison of the amendment chart annexed along with the earlier judgment as well as with the subsequent judgement goes to show that only valuation of the northern part of plot allotted to the answering respondent has been corrected from 60 paise to 40 paise and accordingly the area has also been corrected and apart from above, there is no material or substantial change in the order. It was only a clerical mistake which has been corrected and the same cannot be termed to be review of the earlier order. 8. In view of above facts and discussions, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order. The petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed. 9. It was only a clerical mistake which has been corrected and the same cannot be termed to be review of the earlier order. 8. In view of above facts and discussions, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order. The petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed. 9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.