JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri A. P. Singh for the petitioner and Sri B. B. Paul for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1994 by which reference has been accepted, a chak road has been carved out through the chak of the petitioner reducing the land of sector road and the order dated 16.7.2015 by which recall application of the petitioner has been rejected. It has been stated in the writ petition that the village was placed under Consolidation operation and notification U/S 20 of the Act was issued on 25.2.1972. The chak of the petitioner as allotted originally has been confirmed as no one filed objection against it. Thereafter, in the year 1992 Hawaldar and others filed an application under Section 42 A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for carving out a chak road through plot Nos. 2855, 2856, 2857 and 2858 which was allotted in the chak of the petitioner. On this application a report has been submitted by Assistant Consolidation Officer. After hearing the parties the reference has been forwarded by Consolidation Officer and thereafter Settlement Officer Consolidation to Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 30.3.1994. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order on 28.9.1994 alleging therein that the order dated 30.3.1994 was an ex parte order. In the recall application it has also been stated that a notice of the reference has been received to the petitioner on 8.6.1993. When the petitioner appeared before the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation on the date fixed in the notice then at that time there was a boycott of the Court of the presiding officer, the petitioner was informed that whenever the matter will be heard again and notice will be given to him but later on no notice was issued to him and the order was passed ex parte on 30.3.1994. When the petitioner came to inquire in the matter then he came to know the order dated 30.3.1994 as such recall application was filed along with delay condonation application. The delay in filing the recall application was condoned by the order dated 24.1.2004. When the petitioner came to inquire in the matter then he came to know the order dated 30.3.1994 as such recall application was filed along with delay condonation application. The delay in filing the recall application was condoned by the order dated 24.1.2004. Thereafter, the recall application was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the order dated 16.7.2015 rejected the recall application of the petitioner holding that once notice has been given to the petitioner then it was his duty to watch the proceedings and appear before the Court but he has failed to watch the proceeding on the date fixed. There was no ground for recalling the order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 3. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. 4. So far as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.2015 is concerned the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded on the fact that the notice of the reference was served upon the petitioner and it was his duty to watch the proceedings. Since the petitioner was not vigilant in watching the proceedings as such no ground was made for recalling the order. However, the ground taken for the default was that on the date fixed in the notice there was boycott of the Court of presiding officer of Deputy Director of Consolidation. This ground has not been controverted in the impugned order. If there was a boycott of the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation on the date fixed in the reference and on that in the presence of the petitioner no other date was fixed then it was imperative for the Deputy Director of Consolidation before deciding the reference that afresh notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner. Thus the order was ex parte and the recall application was illegally rejected. 5. So far as reference and impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.3.1994 is concerned the order was passed in exercise of power under Section 42 A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thus the order was ex parte and the recall application was illegally rejected. 5. So far as reference and impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.3.1994 is concerned the order was passed in exercise of power under Section 42 A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 42 A provides 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 apparent 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 interested, correct the same." 6. Thus in exercise of power under Section 42 A the clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of record can be corrected. In this case, there was no clerical or arithmetical error. A fresh demand has been accepted after finalizing of the chak which cannot be termed as a clerical or arithmetical error. Thus, the order is totally without jurisdiction and does not fall within the purview of Section 42 A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. So far as the demand of chak road is concerned the sector road are carved out at the time of preparation of statement of principle. If any person is aggrieved by carving out the sector road then he is required to challenge the same under Section 9 itself. In this case no objection under Section 9 has been filed against the carving out the sector road. So far as the chak road is concerned there is already a chak road connecting the abadi of the village from the southern side of the chak of the petitioner and also just after one chak in the northern side there is another chak road. Thus, on the basis of extreme necessity of chak road also the demand of fresh chak road was not existing. The impugned reference is an abuse of process of the Court and has been illegally accepted by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.3.1994 and 16.7.2015 are set aside. Reference proceedings are quashed.