Bhagwandeen v. Kamlesh Kumar Shukla) instituted under Section

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and Sri Vaibhav Kr. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to remaining private respondents are dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is the recorded tenure holder of Gata no. 976/0.012 hectare, situated in village - Dulhapur Bankata, pargana, Tehsil & District -Gonda, there is a discrepancy in the village map, and accordingly, an application under section 24 of the UP Revenue Code was given by the petitioner with regard to Gata number 976, area 0.012 hectare. The land of the petitioner is situated adjacent to Gata No. 976, and it is his case that any disturbance or change in Gata No. 976 shall effect the petitioner.

4. It is in the said proceedings that the demarcation report was prepared by the revenue inspector on 13-01-2023, and on the basis of the said revenue report, a case was registered on 19-01-2023, and notices were issued to the parties concerned. In the said proceedings, another inspection report was submitted on 21-1-2023 by the revenue inspector, and an ex-parte order was passed on the said report.

5. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by means of order dated 29-11-2023, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter on its merits, taking into account the report dated 13-1-2023. The order dated 29-11-2023 was assailed before this court by filing a writ petition being Writ B No. 332 of 2024 which was decided on 22-3-2024. The court, while declining to 2 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 interfere in the matter, passed the following orders: "Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties also the material available on record including the observations and findings given by the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P, Lucknow in the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Revision No. REV/585/2023/Gonda, Computerized Case No. R2023083000585 (Bhagwandeen vs. Kamlesh Kumar Shukla) instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is for the following reasons:- (i) In terms of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Up Ziladhikari, Sadar, Gonda, a report was submitted by the revenue inspector concerned indicating therein that the area of the plot of the petitioner i.e. Gata No. 976/0.0120 hectare situated at Village- Dulhapur, Pargrana, Tehsil & District- Gonda mentioned in the map is not as mentioned in the Khatauni, as such, demarcation is not possible prior to correction of revenue map. (ii) Despite indication aforesaid in the said report, the respondent No. 2 directed the revenue inspector concerned on 21.01.2023 for submitting fresh report for the purposes of demarcation of the aforesaid plot of the petitioner. (iii) The map admittedly as per the submission made by the petitioner's counsel was corrected in the month of May, 2023. (iv) In terms of the order impugned dated 29.01.2023, the revenue inspector submitted its report dated 04.02.2023. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the expectation that the authority concerned shall conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously".

6. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would indicate that it has been observed that the demarcation is not possible prior to the correction of the revenue map, and the High Court itself has taken cognizance of the fact that the map was corrected in the month of May 2023. It is in the remand proceedings that a fresh order has been passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate on 18-11-2024, placing reliance upon the spot inspection report of 25-5-2023.

7. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 18-11-2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and had filed a revision, which has been rejected by means of order dated 8-10-2025 where the order dated 18-11- 2024 has been affirmed. The main ground for challenge by the petitioner 3 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 is that once the Board of Revenue while remanding the matter, had directed the trial court to decide the controversy after taking cognizance of the report dated 13-1-2023 then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not have relied upon a subsequent report dated 25-5-2023, and accordingly, he has committed manifest error in deciding the said controversy as he has failed to comply with the direction of the Board of Revenue, and therefore the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside. On the strength of same arguments it is contended that the Board of Revenue has also erred in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.

8. The entire crux of the argument of the petitioner are that in fact, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have relied and allowed the application in favour of the petitioner relying upon the report dated 13-1-2023 as directed by the Board of Revenue.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the petition. It has been submitted that firstly, it was never the direction of the Board of Revenue that the matter had to be decided relying solely upon the report dated 13/01/2023, but it has only directed him to consider the report dated 13/01/2023. They further submitted that the said order was duly taken cognizance of, and it finds mention in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. They further submit that once this High Court was of the view that demarcation can be conducted only after correction of the map, then, certainly, the report dated 13/01/2023 which was prior to correction of the map could not have been relied upon in the demarcation proceedings and rightly the demarcation proceedings have inspection report dated been concluded placing reliance on 25/03/2023 which is subsequent to the correction of the map.

10. It has been stated that this Court, in the previous judgment, in its finding in paragraph No. (iii), had clearly stated that, as per the admitted position, the map was corrected in May 2023, and accordingly, in the circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

11. I have heard and considered the rival submissions as well as the record.

12. The only ground relied upon by the petitioner in assailing the impugned orders is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had decided the case without relying upon the spot inspection report dated 13/01/2023. As already discussed above and submitted by the respondents, the order of the Board of Revenue was subjected to judicial review by this Court, which, though, had declined to interfere in the order passed by the Board of Revenue but nonetheless had clearly stated that demarcation is not possible prior to correction of the map. This Court had further recorded 4 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 the fact that the map was corrected in May 2023, and, therefore, any report prior to May 2023 would be of no consequences for the purposes of demarcation.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that another report was submitted on 25/05/2023, which was duly considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while deciding the matter on 18/11/2023, and consequently, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. This court is of the considered view that correctly the Sub- Divisional Magistrate did not rely upon the previous report dated 13/01/2023 being the report which was submitted prior to the correction of the map and after the map was corrected in May 2023, a fresh report was submitted on 25/05/2023 which was taken into consideration and an appropriate order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 18/11/2024. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments made by the petitioner that the proceedings could have been concluded only taken into account the report dated 13.01.2023 as directed by Board of Revenue.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that any error has been committed by the authorities while relying upon the report dated 25.05.2023 which was subsequent to the correction of the map. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. December 9, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and Sri Vaibhav Kr. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to remaining private respondents are dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is the recorded tenure holder of Gata no. 976/0.012 hectare, situated in village - Dulhapur Bankata, pargana, Tehsil & District -Gonda, there is a discrepancy in the village map, and accordingly, an application under section 24 of the UP Revenue Code was given by the petitioner with regard to Gata number 976, area 0.012 hectare. The land of the petitioner is situated adjacent to Gata No. 976, and it is his case that any disturbance or change in Gata No. 976 shall effect the petitioner.

4. It is in the said proceedings that the demarcation report was prepared by the revenue inspector on 13-01-2023, and on the basis of the said revenue report, a case was registered on 19-01-2023, and notices were issued to the parties concerned. In the said proceedings, another inspection report was submitted on 21-1-2023 by the revenue inspector, and an ex-parte order was passed on the said report.

5. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by means of order dated 29-11-2023, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter on its merits, taking into account the report dated 13-1-2023. The order dated 29-11-2023 was assailed before this court by filing a writ petition being Writ B No. 332 of 2024 which was decided on 22-3-2024. The court, while declining to 2 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 interfere in the matter, passed the following orders: "Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties also the material available on record including the observations and findings given by the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P, Lucknow in the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Revision No. REV/585/2023/Gonda, Computerized Case No. R2023083000585 (Bhagwandeen vs. Kamlesh Kumar Shukla) instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is for the following reasons:- (i) In terms of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Up Ziladhikari, Sadar, Gonda, a report was submitted by the revenue inspector concerned indicating therein that the area of the plot of the petitioner i.e. Gata No. 976/0.0120 hectare situated at Village- Dulhapur, Pargrana, Tehsil & District- Gonda mentioned in the map is not as mentioned in the Khatauni, as such, demarcation is not possible prior to correction of revenue map. (ii) Despite indication aforesaid in the said report, the respondent No. 2 directed the revenue inspector concerned on 21.01.2023 for submitting fresh report for the purposes of demarcation of the aforesaid plot of the petitioner. (iii) The map admittedly as per the submission made by the petitioner's counsel was corrected in the month of May, 2023. (iv) In terms of the order impugned dated 29.01.2023, the revenue inspector submitted its report dated 04.02.2023. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the expectation that the authority concerned shall conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously".

6. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would indicate that it has been observed that the demarcation is not possible prior to the correction of the revenue map, and the High Court itself has taken cognizance of the fact that the map was corrected in the month of May 2023. It is in the remand proceedings that a fresh order has been passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate on 18-11-2024, placing reliance upon the spot inspection report of 25-5-2023.

7. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 18-11-2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and had filed a revision, which has been rejected by means of order dated 8-10-2025 where the order dated 18-11- 2024 has been affirmed. The main ground for challenge by the petitioner 3 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 is that once the Board of Revenue while remanding the matter, had directed the trial court to decide the controversy after taking cognizance of the report dated 13-1-2023 then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not have relied upon a subsequent report dated 25-5-2023, and accordingly, he has committed manifest error in deciding the said controversy as he has failed to comply with the direction of the Board of Revenue, and therefore the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside. On the strength of same arguments it is contended that the Board of Revenue has also erred in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.

8. The entire crux of the argument of the petitioner are that in fact, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have relied and allowed the application in favour of the petitioner relying upon the report dated 13-1-2023 as directed by the Board of Revenue.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the petition. It has been submitted that firstly, it was never the direction of the Board of Revenue that the matter had to be decided relying solely upon the report dated 13/01/2023, but it has only directed him to consider the report dated 13/01/2023. They further submitted that the said order was duly taken cognizance of, and it finds mention in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. They further submit that once this High Court was of the view that demarcation can be conducted only after correction of the map, then, certainly, the report dated 13/01/2023 which was prior to correction of the map could not have been relied upon in the demarcation proceedings and rightly the demarcation proceedings have inspection report dated been concluded placing reliance on 25/03/2023 which is subsequent to the correction of the map.

10. It has been stated that this Court, in the previous judgment, in its finding in paragraph No. (iii), had clearly stated that, as per the admitted position, the map was corrected in May 2023, and accordingly, in the circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

11. I have heard and considered the rival submissions as well as the record.

12. The only ground relied upon by the petitioner in assailing the impugned orders is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had decided the case without relying upon the spot inspection report dated 13/01/2023. As already discussed above and submitted by the respondents, the order of the Board of Revenue was subjected to judicial review by this Court, which, though, had declined to interfere in the order passed by the Board of Revenue but nonetheless had clearly stated that demarcation is not possible prior to correction of the map. This Court had further recorded 4 WRIB No. 1171 of 2025 the fact that the map was corrected in May 2023, and, therefore, any report prior to May 2023 would be of no consequences for the purposes of demarcation.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that another report was submitted on 25/05/2023, which was duly considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while deciding the matter on 18/11/2023, and consequently, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. This court is of the considered view that correctly the Sub- Divisional Magistrate did not rely upon the previous report dated 13/01/2023 being the report which was submitted prior to the correction of the map and after the map was corrected in May 2023, a fresh report was submitted on 25/05/2023 which was taken into consideration and an appropriate order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 18/11/2024. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments made by the petitioner that the proceedings could have been concluded only taken into account the report dated 13.01.2023 as directed by Board of Revenue.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that any error has been committed by the authorities while relying upon the report dated 25.05.2023 which was subsequent to the correction of the map. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. December 9, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench