High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.26.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. The dispute raised in the present writ petition pertains to correction of map of which the petitioners are recorded tenure holders and associated with gata nos.462 area 0.623 hectare situated at village Satrahi, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that father of the petitioners had filed an application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of map with regard to aforesaid land. A report was submitted and it was found that none of lands adjacent to gata numbers was excess of the land recorded in their names and consequently in the aforesaid circumstances, by means of report dated 25.06.2008, it was held that it was not possible to correct the map of the petitioners. On the basis of said report, the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar rejected the application of the father of petitioners by means of order dated 24.09.2008 after recording that he has not been able to indicate any gata number which is in excess of the land recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008 filed review application which was also rejected on the same grounds on 03.06.2013.

5. The Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in review application had recorded the fact that none of the lands adjacent to gata numbers was in excess of the land and the petitioners had been unable to indicate any other gata number, which is land in excess and therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioner was not liable to be accepted.

6. Accordingly, from a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that even though the land indicated in the map pertaining to gata no.462 was less than the area shown in the map but the map could be corrected only when the land of adjacent gata numbers was in excess. In absence of aforesaid facts, the map of the petitioners could not have been corrected and hence application for correction of map and the application for review were rejected. The petitioners being aggrieved by both the orders had preferred revision before the Commissioner, Ambedkar Nagar.

7. This Court perused the application for review and finds that despite concurrent findings recorded by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, the petitioners in review application did not indicate any gata number which according to them had excess land as per revenue records. The revisional authority again revisited the entire facts and perused the inspection report dated 25.06.2008 and found that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case where no excess land was found in the adjacent gata number and it was not possible to accept the contention of petitioners and correct the map as sought by them. He has categorically recorded that in none of the adjacent gata nos.459 to 465 is there any excess land. Accordingly, the Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the authorities below. The Court finds that the proceedings under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act do not attract the principle of res- judicata, which has been noticed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt Shyamraji and others vs. Board of Revenue Lkt and others; (2019) (37) LCD 1229. The relevant paragraphs 10,11, 12 and 13 are as under:- "10. On the other hand, Sri Aditya Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Magistrate was passed on the application moved by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and in the name of mistake or discrepancy in the map, the petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

11. Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is extracted herein under:- "28. Maintenance of map and field-book. - The Collector shall in accordance with rules made under Section 234, maintain a map and field- book of each village in his district and shall cause annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribe, to be recorded therein all changes in the boundaries of each village or field and shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book".

12. A perusal of the aforesaid quoted provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act shows that Collector has been cast with the statutory duty to maintain the map and filed book of the villages in his District. He is also cast with another statutory duty of causing annually or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, recording of all changes in the boundaries of each village or filed and correcting any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field book.

13. As a matter of fact, for making any correction in the map or in the field-book, no application is mandatorily required to be moved. Such correction has to be necessarily made by the Collector where any mistake or discrepancy is noticed by him on an application preferred by a person or if any mistake comes to his knowledge by any other mode or means. If a mistake comes to the notice of the Collector either on any application or even otherwise, he is duty bound to make correction in the map. Tenure holder is not even bound to make any application for effecting corrections in the map, if the same exists."

8. Accordingly, in the present proceedings the claim of the petitioners has been denied solely on the ground that with regard to gata number indicated by them no excess land has been found but in light of interpretation of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, if subsequently another occasion arises for avocation of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and the petitioners are able to demonstrate the excess land on any adjacent gatas, the authorities will be duty bound to consider the petitioners' application and pass appropriate orders thereon.

9. Subject to aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of. . Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Renu/- (Alok Mathur,J) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.26.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. The dispute raised in the present writ petition pertains to correction of map of which the petitioners are recorded tenure holders and associated with gata nos.462 area 0.623 hectare situated at village Satrahi, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that father of the petitioners had filed an application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of map with regard to aforesaid land. A report was submitted and it was found that none of lands adjacent to gata numbers was excess of the land recorded in their names and consequently in the aforesaid circumstances, by means of report dated 25.06.2008, it was held that it was not possible to correct the map of the petitioners. On the basis of said report, the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar rejected the application of the father of petitioners by means of order dated 24.09.2008 after recording that he has not been able to indicate any gata number which is in excess of the land recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008 filed review application which was also rejected on the same grounds on 03.06.2013.

5. The Collector, Ambedkar Nagar in review application had recorded the fact that none of the lands adjacent to gata numbers was in excess of the land and the petitioners had been unable to indicate any other gata number, which is land in excess and therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioner was not liable to be accepted.

6. Accordingly, from a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that even though the land indicated in the map pertaining to gata no.462 was less than the area shown in the map but the map could be corrected only when the land of adjacent gata numbers was in excess. In absence of aforesaid facts, the map of the petitioners could not have been corrected and hence application for correction of map and the application for review were rejected. The petitioners being aggrieved by both the orders had preferred revision before the Commissioner, Ambedkar Nagar.

7. This Court perused the application for review and finds that despite concurrent findings recorded by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, the petitioners in review application did not indicate any gata number which according to them had excess land as per revenue records. The revisional authority again revisited the entire facts and perused the inspection report dated 25.06.2008 and found that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case where no excess land was found in the adjacent gata number and it was not possible to accept the contention of petitioners and correct the map as sought by them. He has categorically recorded that in none of the adjacent gata nos.459 to 465 is there any excess land. Accordingly, the Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the authorities below. The Court finds that the proceedings under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act do not attract the principle of res- judicata, which has been noticed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt Shyamraji and others vs. Board of Revenue Lkt and others; (2019) (37) LCD 1229. The relevant paragraphs 10,11, 12 and 13 are as under:- "10. On the other hand, Sri Aditya Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Magistrate was passed on the application moved by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and in the name of mistake or discrepancy in the map, the petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

11. Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is extracted herein under:- "28. Maintenance of map and field-book. - The Collector shall in accordance with rules made under Section 234, maintain a map and field- book of each village in his district and shall cause annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribe, to be recorded therein all changes in the boundaries of each village or field and shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book".

12. A perusal of the aforesaid quoted provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act shows that Collector has been cast with the statutory duty to maintain the map and filed book of the villages in his District. He is also cast with another statutory duty of causing annually or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, recording of all changes in the boundaries of each village or filed and correcting any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field book.

13. As a matter of fact, for making any correction in the map or in the field-book, no application is mandatorily required to be moved. Such correction has to be necessarily made by the Collector where any mistake or discrepancy is noticed by him on an application preferred by a person or if any mistake comes to his knowledge by any other mode or means. If a mistake comes to the notice of the Collector either on any application or even otherwise, he is duty bound to make correction in the map. Tenure holder is not even bound to make any application for effecting corrections in the map, if the same exists."

8. Accordingly, in the present proceedings the claim of the petitioners has been denied solely on the ground that with regard to gata number indicated by them no excess land has been found but in light of interpretation of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, if subsequently another occasion arises for avocation of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and the petitioners are able to demonstrate the excess land on any adjacent gatas, the authorities will be duty bound to consider the petitioners' application and pass appropriate orders thereon.

9. Subject to aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of. . Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Renu/- (Alok Mathur,J) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench