Allahabad High Court

Shaktinath Mani And 6 Others vs Additional Commissioner ... on 11 September, 2023

Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 Reserved on 22.8.2023
 
Delivered on 11.9.2023
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176634
 

 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3151 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Shaktinath Mani And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Judicial) And 11 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh,Akhilanand Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.B.N.Tripathi,Sudhir Bharti
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 4 to 12, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti for respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated in the year 1999 at the instance of father of respondent nos. 4 to 7 as well as respondent nos. 11 and 12 for correction of map which was initially registered as case No. 31 of 1999 and finally registered as case No. 588 of 2003 in respect to plot Nos. 100, 154, 156 and 157 situated in Village Shankarpura Tappa- Haveli, Pargana- Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil- Bhatparani District- Deoria impleading the petitioners' grandfather in the aforementioned proceeding. In the aforementioned proceeding, a report has been submitted by Revenue Inspector on 18.8.1999 in which area of plot No. 157 shown to be in excess by 0.10 dismil and area of plot Nos. 152, 153, 154 and 155 shown to be in excess by 6.1/2 dismil. Another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspector which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 18.1.2003 which is contrary to the earlier report dated 18.8.1999. Petitioners' father filed his objection dated 18.6.2003 to the report dated 9.1.2003 on the ground that plot No. 100 is abadi and the residential houses of the Villagers are situated over abadi plot No. 100, therefore, proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector Bhatparani, Deoria appeared in the proceeding and recorded his statement in respect to the report submitted by him on 9.1.2003. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector stated in his statement that plot No. 156 is wrongly mentioned as plot No. 165 in the report as well as each and every plot has been measured by him separately but in the cross-examination, he admitted that he measure only plot Nos. 154, 155 and 157 but plot No. 100 has not been measured by him. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector, Administration, Deoria has allowed the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents vide order dated 3.11.2004. Against the order dated 3.11.2004, petitioners' father filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was registered as Revision No. 66/66 of 2004-2005, Computerized case No. C20040500001105 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Additional Commissioner vide order dated 16.12.2004 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 3.11.2004 and interim order was remained in operation till the disposal of the revision. Revisional Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.12.2022 and 3.11.2004 passed by Additional Commissioner Administration Gorakhpur and Additional Collector Administration Deoria respectively. It is also material that writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 filed by Sukhdev (father of respondent no.7) in respect to allotment of chak proceeding is pending before this Court and interim order is operating for maintaining status quo by both the parties to the proceeding.

3. Respondent nos. 4 to 12 have filed their counter-affidavit and petitioners have filed their rejoinder-affidavit in the matter.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that plot No. 100 is the abadi land therefore proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable in respect to plot No. 100. He further submitted that abadi plot No. 100 is carved out from old plot No. 408 area 1.90 acre. He further submitted that plot Nos. 154, 155, 156 and 157 belongs to petitioners and if the relief prayed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is granted, the plot No. 156 will be affected which is beyond the scope of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as title cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector dated 9.1.2003 is contrary to the earlier report dated 18.8.1999, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector. He further submitted that objection filed at the instance of the petitioners to the subsequent report of Revenue Inspector has not been taken into consideration and the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents has been allowed. He further submitted that subsequent reports submitted by Revenue Inspector dated 9.1.2003 is not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that chak allotment proceeding during consolidation operation in respect to plot Nos. 154 and 157 has been decided and writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 is pending before this Court in which interim order is operating. He further submitted that confirmed map prepared during consolidation operation in respect to the area of the entire Village including excess area, if any can be corrected by consolidation authorities and not by way of proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and the application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by contesting respondents is liable to be rejected. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (11) ADJ 321 Sunil Singh and Others Vs. Kashi Singh and Others in order to demonstrate that if the reports submitted in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is not in accordance with law then the objection filed against the report should be properly considered while deciding the application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

5. On the other hand, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 12 submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as such, writ petition filed by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Act was rightly initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents and the first report submitted by the Revenue Inspector was not according to law accordingly another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspector which is in accordance with law. He further submitted that report dated 9.1.2003 was accompanied by proposed amendment chart of the plot in question as well as proposed map which only demonstrate that the jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been exercised in accordance with the provisions of the act/ rules. He further submitted that Revenue Inspector was examined in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act who proved his report dated 9.1.2003. He further submitted that pendency of the Writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 as well as grant of interim order in that writ petition will not come in the way of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that plot No. 100 is admittedly abadi over which the entire Village Shankarpura is situated. He further submitted that no question of title has been adjudicated by way of proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that if there is any mistake in the map prepared by the authority then the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act will be treated as rightful exercise of jurisdiction under Article 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that how the prejudice has been caused to petitioners by allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He finally submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (137) RD 23 Phool Singh and 7 Others Vs. Upper Commissioner (Law) and 6 Others in order to demonstrate that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of reports submitted in the proceeding cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents which was allowed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 3.11.2004. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners against the order dated 3.11.2004 has been dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2022.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as well as Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-

"Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901

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."

"Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book.-(1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, all changes in the boundaries of the village or survey numbers, and shall also cause to be corrected, any errors or omissions which are, from time to time, detected in such map or field book (khasra).

(2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly."

9. The perusal of the aforementioned provision of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901/ Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 demonstrate that Collector in accordance with the rule made under the Act/ Code shall maintain a map and a field book (khasra) for each Village and shall cause to be recorded annually or at such longer intervals all changes in the boundaries or survey numbers as well as Collector shall correct any errors detected in map or field book (khasra).

10. In the instant matter, the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents in the year 1999. The subsequent reports dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 submitted by the Revenue Inspector and forwarded by Tehsildar in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act reveals that proper procedure has been followed by the Revenue Inspector. C.H. Form Nos. 41 and 45, confirmed chak map as well as settlement map were taken into consideration by the Revenue Inspector before submitting his report dated 9.1.2003 along with schedule dated 9.1.2003. The perusal of the report dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 along with schedule will be necessary which is as under:-

"न्यायालय मुख्य राजस्व अधिकारी देवरिया

वाद सं० 31/447, धारा-28 LR Act

मौ० संकरपुरा पर० स०म०

तह- भाटपाररानी देवरिया

राम नरेश vs सुखदेव आदि

महोदय,

संलग्न वाद अन्तर्गत धारा 28 एल.आर.एक्ट श्री रामनरेश बनाम सुखदेव सम्बन्धित ग्राम शंकरपुरा तप्पा हवेली परगना स.म. तहसील भाटपार रानी जनपद देवरिया पर पारित आदेश के अनुपालन मे वाद पत्र का अवलोकन किया गया। वादी की मुख्य आपत्ति है कि सन्दर्भित गाटा सं० 100,154,155,156 व 157 का बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र अभिलिखित रकबे के अनुरूप न होकर मौके की स्थिति के विपरीत बन गया है तथा गाटा संख्या 154,155,167 के बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र अभिलिखित रकबे के अनुरूप न होकर बड़े आकार के बन गये है, को संशोधन कर चकमार्ग संख्या 156 को और पूरब कर बढ़े हुए नक्शे का क्षेत्रफली के मुताबिक काटकर आ.नं. 100 पुरानी आबादी में सम्मिलित कर दिया जाय। वादी ने अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य के रूप में जोत चकबन्दी आकार पत्र 41 व 45 की नकल प्रति, पुष्टिकृत चकमैप व बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र की नकल प्रति संलग्न वाद पत्र में संलग्न किया है।

सन्दर्भित हाल आ. नं. 100/1.90 डि. साविक नम्बर 408/1.90 डि. से मिलकर आ.नं. 154/0.421 डि. साविक नम्बरर 376मि०,/0.05, 377मि०/0.06, 378मि०/0.06, 380मि/0.01, 381मि/0.23, 382/2मि/00.006 डि से मिलकर आ नं. 155/0.05 सा.नं. 376मि/0.02, 377मि/0.03 डि से मिलकर व आ.नं. 376मि/0.05, 365मि/0.02, 363मि/0.03, 362मि/0.004, 361मि/0.01, 350मि/0.02, 348मि/0.02, 348मि/0.02, 347मि/0.01, 344मि/0.02, 329मि/0.02, 381मि/0.02 डि से मिलकर व आ.नं. 157मि/1.05 सा.नं. 359मि/0.01, 360मि/0.14, 363मि/0.35, 362मि/0.04, 365मि/0.05, 366मि/0.27, 367मि/0.12, 367मि/0.12, 368/0.04, 369/0.04, 369/0.03 डि से मिलकर आ नं. 94/0.03 डि सा. नं 364/0.03 डि सा. नं. 364/0.03 डि से मिलकर व आ.नं. 160/188डि/0.01 सा.नं. 367/2डि/0.01 से मिलकर व आ.नं. 376मि/0.04, 377मि/0.02 डि से मिलकर व आ नं० 153/0.10 सा नं. 377मि/0.02, 378मि/0.01, 379मि/0.01, 380मि/0.02 तथा 381मि/0.04 डि मिलकर व आ.नं. 153/0.10 सा. नं. 377मि/0.02, 379मि/0.01, 380मि/0.02 तथा 381मि/0.04 डि से मिलकर व आ. नं. 144/0.42 डि सा. नं. 279मि/0.012, 280मि/0.007, 283मि/0.07, 283मि/0.18 डि से मिलकर व आ.नं. 145/0.05 डि सा. नं. 279मि/0.01, 281मि/0.01, 282मि/0.01, 377मि/0.01, 378मि/0.01, 376मि/0.01, 376मि/0.01, डि से मिल कर व आ नं. 146/0.412, डि सा. नं. 282/1/0.412 डि सा नं. 282/1/0.031, 283/1/0.07, 368मि/0.01, 375मि/0.04, 376मि/0.04, 377मि/0.06, 378मि/0.14 379मि/0.02 डि से मिलकर तथा आ नं. 93/0.07 डि सा नम्बर 349/0.07 डि से मिलकर बना है वा मिलान पुष्टिकृत चकमैप से किया गया जो त्रुटिपूर्ण पाया गया। राजस्व निरीक्षक महोदय भाटयार रानी के आख्या दिनांक 18.08.99 तथा न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 10.12.99 के अनुपालन मे मौके की जांच के पश्चात् आ.नं. 156/0.026, 94/0.03, 160/188/0.01 डि के बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र का माप गुनिया एवं परकार से गणना द्वारा निकाला गया जो अभिलिखित रकबे के बराबर व आ.नं. 154/0.412, 155/0.05, 157/1.05, 144/0.47 डि के बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र का माप गणना द्वारा गुनिया एवं वरकारे से निकाला गया जो अभिलिखित रकबे से क्रमशः 0.03डि, 0.02डि, 0.06डि, 0.05डि बडे आकार का तथा आ.नं. 100/1.90, 146/0.412डि के भी बन्दोबस्ती भूचित्र का माप गुनिया एवं परकार से गणना द्वारा निकाला गया जो अभिलिखित रकबे से क्रमशः 0.09डि, 0.01/2 डि छोटे आकृति का बना है। इस प्रकार पुष्टिकृत चकमैप को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए रकबा करारी के आधार पर संशोधित तालिका के अनुसार निम्न संशोधन प्रस्ताव तैयार किया गया। आ.नं. 154 के उत्तरी पश्चिमी कोण से 20 कड़ी पूरब बढ़ाकर एक बिन्दू कायम कर इसे आ.नं. 158 के उत्तरी पश्चिमी कोण से मिला दिया गया जो चकमार्ग नं० 156 का पूर्वी तथा 154, 155, 157 का पश्चिमी मेडा होगा। आ.नं. 135 के दक्षिणी पश्चिमी कोण को आ.नं. 93 के उत्तरी पूर्वी कोण से मिला दिया गया जो चकमार्ग नं० 156 का दक्षिणी तथा आ.नं. 134, 132, 100, 94 व 93 का पूर्वी मेडा होगा। आ नं. 94 के पूर्वी मेड को पूरब सीधा बढ़ाकर चकमार्ग के पश्चिमी मेड से मिला दिया जो 94 का पूर्वी संशोधित मेडा होगा तथा आ.नं. 94 का पुराना पूर्वी मेडा संशोधित पश्चिमी मेड़ा होगा आ.नं. 94 व 165 का शेष भाग आ.नं. 100 का भाग होगा। आ.नं. 146 के उत्तरी पूर्वी कोण को 20 कड़ी उत्तर बढ़ाकर एक बिन्दू कायम कर इसे आ.नं. 144 के दक्षिणी पश्चिमी कोड से मिला दिया गया।

इस प्रकार का संशोधन प्रस्ताव को अनुरेखित नक्शे पर आच्छादित करके लाल मासे से दर्शाया गया है जो इस आख्या का मुख्य भाग है।

अस्तु आख्या अवलोकनार्थ सेवा में प्रेषित है।

रा०नि०

भाटपार रानी

09.01.03

अग्र सरित

तह० भाटपार रानी

18.01.03

EX Ka-1

12.10.04

संशोधन तालिका

रामनरेश बनाम सुखदेव

दफा-28 एल०आर०एक्ट

ग्राम शंकरपुरा तप्पा हवेली परगना स.म.

तहसील-भाटयाररानी, जनपद-देवरिया

बावत् आ.नं.- 156,100,154,155,157

बन्दोबस्ती

नम्बर

बन्दोबस्ती

रकबा डि० में

भूचित्र की माप के अनुसार रकबा डि० में

रकबे की कमी डि० में

रकबे की बढ़ोत्तरी डि० में

विशेष विवरण

0.26

0.03

0.01

0.41-1/2

0.44-1/2

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.02

1.05

1.11

0.06

0.42

0.47

0.05

1.90

1.81

0.09

0.41-1/2

0.40

0.01-1/2

4.55

4.60-1/2

0.10-1/2

0.16

रा०नि०

भाटपार रानी

09.01.03

EX Ka 2

12.10.04"

11. It is also material that Revenue Inspector who submitted his report dated 9.1.2003 was examined/ cross-examined in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which will be relevant for the perusal, the same is as under:-

"राम नरेश बनाम सुखदेव

बयान श्री हरीश चन्द्र चौबे राजस्व निरीक्षक भाटपार रानी ने बहलफ बयान किया कि मैं लगभग ढाई तीन साल से इस पद पर कार्यरत है। प्रतिवेदन दिनांक 09.01.2003 तथा उसके साथ संलग्न संशोधन तालिका दिनांक 09.01.2003 जो हमारे लेख व हस्ताक्षर मे है जो क्रमशः (Ex क1) व (Ex क2) है। जो विवादित गाटे है उसकी पैमाईश मैने अलग-2 किया तथा इसके सूचिओं को भी मैने अलग-2 नापा। नापने मे जो दूरी गाटों की आयी उसे मैने संशोधन तालिका मे दर्शित किया है। संशोधन तालिका मे गाटा संख्या 156 अंकित है जबकि लिपिकीय त्रुटि से प्रतिवेदन मे 165 लिख गया है जो वास्तव में 156 है। संशोधन तालिका से गाटा संख्या 154,155,157 तथा 144 जितना पड़ा है। उसे मैने दर्शित कर दिया है। प्रस्तावित संशोधन में मैने संशोधन मे लाल स्याही से दर्शित किया है। बयान सुनकर तस्दीक किया।

12.10.04

राजस्व निरीक्षक

भाटपार रानी

जिरह मिनजानिब हरिश्चन्द चौबे राजस्व निरीक्षक भाटपार रानी

आराजी संख्या 100 की पैमाइश नही किये है बल्कि प्रतिवादी के आराजियात संख्या 154,155,157 को केवल नापा है। चूंकि इनका क्षेत्रफल अधिक मिला इसलिए इनके बढ़े हुए रकबे से आबादी की पूर्ति की गयी है। इसी तरह से पुष्टिकृत मे विवादित गाटों के जो पुराने नम्बरों की आकृति है उसके क्षेत्रफल को नही निकाला है बल्कि उसके पूर्वी हिस्से को नापा है। चूँकि आराजी संख्या 100 आबादी को मैने नही नापा है इसलिए इसका क्षेत्रफल मे नही बता सकता कि इसका रकबा कितना है। खतौनी के अनुरूप है अलग नही। आराजी संख्या 130 के दक्षिणी पश्चिमी कोने से जो आराजी संख्या 100 का घुमाव है उसकी दूरी 2 जरीब 10 कड़ी है। इस कर्व से आराजी संख्या 90 के उत्तरी पश्चिमी कोने को बीच की दूरी 210 कड़ी है, पहले कहा, बाद में 230 है कहा गया। प्रतिवादी के आराजी संख्या 154 का उत्तरी भुजा 220 कड़ी, पुनः कहा गया कि 210 है, पश्चिमी 130 कड़ी उस बिन्दू से पूरबी यानि आराजी संख्या 155 की उत्तरी भुजा की दूरी 602 कड़ी एवं 155 के पूर्वी मेडे की दूरी 80 कड़ी एवं 154 के दक्षिणी मेड़े की दूरी 140 कड़ी एवं 154 के पूर्वी भुजा 230 कड़ी हैं यदि मेरे द्वारा जो दूरी नाप कर अंकित किया गया है उससे संशोधन प्रास्तक मे 10 कड़ी का अनतर पाया जाता है। तो वह पैमाईश गलत है। जिरह समाप्त।

रा०नि०

12.10.04 भाटपार रानी"

12. Additional District Magistrate (Administration, Deoria/ respondent no.2) after considering the report dated 9.1.2003 allowed the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents holding that area of plot Nos. 154, 155, 157 and 144 are in excess by 3 dismil, 2 dismil, 6 dismil and 5 dismil and area of plot No. 100 and 146 is smaller by 9 dismil and 1.5 dismil accordingly reports dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 is to be accepted and objection filed against the report is liable to be rejected. The finding of fact recorded by Additional District Magistrate, Administration Deoria while allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been maintained in revision by Additional Commissioner Administration IIIrd Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur.

13. The jurisdiction exercised by Additional District Magistrate Administration/ respondent no.2 while allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is in accordance with law as the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector in the aforementioned proceeding was proved by the Revenue Inspector by appearing before Additional District Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which cannot be assailed by the petitioners on the ground that plot No. 100 was not measured by the Revenue Inspector or dispute of title has been decided by the Additional District Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as there is no adjudication of title dispute in the matter while passing the impugned orders.

14. This Court in the case reported in 2014 (124) RD 180 Udaibir Singh and another Vs. Additional Commissioner and Others has held that Section 28 of the Act has cast upon a duty to correct the error in the map and an incorrect map cannot be maintained by the Collector forever for any reason whatsoever. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Udaibir Singh and another (Supra) are relevant for perusal which are as under:-

"8. 7. Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 is quoted below:-

"Maintenance of map and field-book.--The Collector shall in accordance with the 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."

By using the word 'shall correct any errors' a duty has been caste upon the Collector to correct the error kept in the map. A perusal of the report of Tehsildar shows that there is error in the map. In case the demarcation of plot No. 407 is not made in the map then it is also an error and Collector is duty bound to correct the demarcation of plot No. 407 also. He can not shirk his responsibility by saying that as the land has been allotted to 109 persons and there is no demarcation of plot No. 407 as such correction in the map is not possible. An incorrect map cannot be maintained by the Collector forever.

9. In such circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Additional Collector dated 31.1.2014 as well as the Additional Commissioner dated 26.3.2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. If necessary the notices may be served to the allottees also. The fresh exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him."

15. The case law cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the instant matter as the Revenue Inspector who submitted his report dated 9.1.2003 has properly proved the same by appearing before the Court in accordance with law.

16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.9.2023

Vandana Y.