JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Karnail Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was allotted land measuring 48 kanals, situated in village Nawanpind Bathe, Tehsil and District Kapurthala on 19.03.1979 from Khasra No. 510 min (287K-0M) and mutation No. 9660 was sanctioned in favour of Karnail Singh on 28.10.1984. Respondent No. 5 and others made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, alleging that they are in possession of 17 kanals of land in Khasra No. 510min (287K-1M), but the mutation of Khasra No. 8440/510/1, 2, 3 (48 kanals) has been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, they prayed for correction in the mutation No. 9660. The Patwari Halqa entered the new mutation No. 4742 and presented it before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaputhala, which was contested by the petitioners. The case set up by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kapurthala, was that the land was allotted to their predecessor-in-interest and the sale certificate was issued in their favour on 19.03.1979, on the basis of which mutation No. 9660 was rightly sanctioned, has been reflected in numerous jamabandis and after 23 years, the Revenue Officers have no power to effect a change in the mutation as it can be done only by the Civil Court. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade rejected the mutation No. 4742 vide his order dated 29.01.2008. 2. Respondent No. 5 filed appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade before the Collector, Kapurthala, which was allowed on 25.07.2008. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and their appeal was dismissed on 30.01.2009. The revision filed before the Financial Commissioner against the orders of both the Collector and the Commissioner was also dismissed on 20.09.2012. 3. As a result thereof, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 25.07.2008, 30.01.2009 and 20.09.2012 in this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that respondent No. 5 has only 1/18th share, which comes to OK-19M, but he is unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. It is also alleged that once the entry has been made in the mutation, it cannot be changed after 23 years as the said entry has been incorporated in the subsequent jamabandis which can only be changed by way of a civil suit. It is also alleged that once the entry has been made in the mutation, it cannot be changed after 23 years as the said entry has been incorporated in the subsequent jamabandis which can only be changed by way of a civil suit. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Tarlok Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 548 (DB) and Rahul and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 3 RCR(Civil) 243. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 5, it is averred that the mistake in the mutation can be corrected by the revenue authorities in terms of Para 7.30 of the Punjab Land Records Manual as, according to him, the land allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was Banjar Qadim but it has been wrongly recorded as Gair Mumkin Bhatte. It is also alleged that respondent No. 5 is in peaceful possession over the suit land in Khasra No. 8440/510/1, 2 & 3, measuring 17 Kanals, and the revenue authorities have rightly corrected the mutation No. 9660. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. 6. Karnail Singh S/o. Ram Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was allotted 48 kanals of nazool land and the sale certificate was issued on 19.03.1979. The mutation No. 9660 with regard to 48 kanals of area was sanctioned in favour of Karnail Singh on 28.10.1984. The mutation was entered as per the jamabandi and tatima of salam khasra number was entered on the back side of mutation, which has now been sought to be changed after a period of 23 years despite the fact that the Patwari Halqa has made a statement on 29.01.2008 that 287 kanals of land of Khasra No. 8440/7360/510 has been allotted to different persons as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01 and several khewats have been created, therefore, it was not desirable to order for correction after 23 years through Sehat Indraj because it would be very difficult to adjust name of the petitioners as co-sharers in different khewats and the revenue record would become more complicated and increase the litigation. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, thus, suggested that it would be better for the parties to approach the Civil Court for correction if any mistake had occurred. However, the Collector had observed that as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91, 17 kanals of nazool land allotted to Karnail Singh S/o. Ram Singh was transferred to various other persons including respondent No. 5 who have constructed their pucca houses over it and order passed by the Collector on 05.07.2006, ordering correction of the mutation, has not been challenged by the petitioners. Similar orders have been passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the petitioners did not rebut the contention of respondent No. 5 that the land allotted to the petitioners was out of Gair Mumkin Bhatte and not from Banjar Qadim. Since there is no dispute that the entry of the mutation under challenge has already been incorporated in the jamabandi, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Rahul and others' case (supra), the said correction can only be effected by way of a civil suit in terms of Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and not in terms of Para 7.30 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, where under only clerical errors can be corrected. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are found to be patently erroneous, illegal and the same are hereby set aside. Petition stands allowed. No costs.