ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. A very short but important question has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to scope of Section 33A of the Bihar Consolidation (of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (in short, the “Act”). 3. As it appears from the order impugned, the Deputy Director directly entertained an application filed by Parmeshwar Rai, respondent no.5 under Section 33A of the Act where the claim was made that the land of Khata No.206, plot No.1640/4678, Khata No. 207, area 73 decimals is ancestral property whose corresponding old Khesra No. is 1181 which was acquired through his ancestor by settlement and the same has been in his peaceful possession. It has further been mentioned that due to clerical error, a wrong entry has been made with regard to the aforesaid land and the land has been recorded in the name of petitioner’s ancestor who had never any connection with the disputed land and request was made to make the necessary correction. The Deputy Director has, accordingly, without considering the materials on record, passed the order in favour of respondents. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 33A of the Act empowers the consolidation authority to make necessary clerical correction but on wrong exercise of power, he has substantively declared the land in favour of respondent No.5 as the name of ancestor of petitioner has been altered by the Dy. Director, Consolidation. He submits that the Deputy Director in the name of making a clerical correction, cannot pass a substantial order, thereby changed the ownership of land in favour of Respondent no.5. 5. Counsel for the private respondents has not disputed the position of law rather submitted that against the impugned order, his brother has filed a revision application before the Director under Section 35 of the Act and, as such, in the ends of justice, the petitioner should also be asked to approach the Director. This Court has to see the parameter of Section 33A of the Act which is as follows: “Section 33A – Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. This Court has to see the parameter of Section 33A of the Act which is as follows: “Section 33A – Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Director of Consolidation is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exists in any document presented under any provision of this Act, he shall either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested, correct the same.” 6. The construction of Section 33A is very clear as it shows only that the power has been conferred to make necessary clerical correction and not substantial adjudication with regard to right and title of the parties and for that other provisions have been made. If the respondent no.5 was of the view that he was wrongly dealt with by the consolidation authority, he had liberty to approach different authorities including the Director under Section 35 of the Act but instead of choosing a right forum, he has chosen a forum which is not permissible in law. 7. In this view of the matter, the order dated 13th January 1998 passed by the Deputy Director in Case No. 680 of 1997 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondent, if so advised, he can raise his grievance before the appropriate forum. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.