# Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 432
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3818 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50664
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 30, 38 & 210 - U.P. Revenue
Rules, 2016 - Rule 25 & 36 - Correction of
Revenue Map - Duty of Collector - Error or
Omission in Revenue Records - Chakbandi
Manual - Applicability.

Held:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,735 of 64,977. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39735 for what follows._

432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bearing on the risk involved would be
"material". As stated in Pollock and Mulla's
Indian Contract and Specific Reliefs Acts,
any fact the knowledge or ignorance of
which would materially influence an
insurer in making the contract or in
estimating the degree and character of risks
in fixing the rate of premium is a material
fact.

Conclusion-II

38. In the present case, the declaration
made by the insured at the bottom of the
proposal form and signed by him contains
clear stipulation to the effect that he has not
withheld any information and that the
statements made by him in the said
declaration shall be the basis of ''contract of
insurance'
between
him
and
the
Corporation and, if any, untrue averment be
contained therein, the contract shall be
absolutely null and void and the money
which shall have been paid in respect
thereof, shall stand forfeited. In the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
contention of the petitioner to the effect
that since forms are filled up by the
agents/officers of the Corporation, anything
omitted would not consitute a ground for
repudiation/rejection of the claim, cannot
be accepted. Contrarily, the stand taken by
the Corporation justifying the orders
impugned has substance in the light of
entire material available on record.

39. In view of the above, there is no
good ground to interfere in the orders
impugned. The writ petition lacks merit and
is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.

40. The original record produced by
Shri Udai Shankar Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent-Corporation, is directed
to be returned to him by the office
immediately.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 432
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ C No. 3818 of 2023

Ravindra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 30, 38 & 210 - U.P. Revenue
Rules, 2016 - Rule 25 & 36 - Correction of
Revenue Map - Duty of Collector - Error or
Omission in Revenue Records - Chakbandi
Manual - Applicability.

Held:
1. The Collector is under a statutory obligation
under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, to maintain and correct errors or
omissions in the revenue map and field book
(khasra) of a village, irrespective of whether an
application is filed, when such errors come to
the notice of revenue authorities.

2. The provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, and U.P. Revenue Rules, 2016, prevail
over the Chakbandi Manual, and Para 101 of the
Chakbandi Manual does not permit refusal to
correct errors in the revenue map solely on the
ground that the discrepancy is less than three
biswas.

3. The Collector's rejection of the petitioner's
application for correction of the revenue map,
despite reports from Naib
Tehsildar and
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
Tehsildar confirming the need for correction,
was a failure to discharge statutory duty.

4. The Revisional Authority erred in law by
failing to consider the statutory provisions of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and Rules, 2016,
while dismissing the petitioner's revision.

5. The impugned orders dated 05.12.2022 and
06.03.2023 were set aside, and the matter was
remanded to the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, for
a fresh decision with a reasoned and speaking
order, considering the statutory duty to correct
errors in revenue records.

Case Laws Discussed:

1.
Ghafoor
Vs
Additional
Commissioner,
MANU/UP/0670/1978

2.
Ali
Khan
Vs
Ram
Prasad,
MANU/UP/0589/1980

3. Surji Devi Vs Additional Commissioner,
MANU/UP/1594/2012

4.
Gaya
Prasad
Vs
Yadunath,
MANU/UP/1457/2017

5. Smt. Shyam Raji Vs Board of Revenue, Misc.
Single No. 7638 of 2015

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders
set aside; matter remanded to Collector,
Ambedkar Nagar, for fresh decision.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1.

Heard
Shri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner assisted by Shri Akshat Kumar,
Advocate and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
Staterespondents.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
05.12.2022 passed in the case instituted
under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code,
2006') for correction of map registered as
Case No. 189 of 2022, Computerized Case
No.D202204040000189 (Ravindra Kumar
Vs.
Krishna
Murari),
whereby
the
application preferred by the petitioner for
correction of map was rejected by the
respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector/District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The petitioner has also assailed the
order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
respondent
no.
2
i.e.
Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya
Division, Ayodhya, whereby the respondent
no. 2 has rejected the Case No. 2544 of
2022,
Computerized
No.
C202204000002544 (Ravindra Kumar Vs.
Krishna Murari And Others) preferred by
the petitioner under Section 210 of Code,
2006, being aggrieved by the order dated
05.12.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3.

4. Considering the dispute pertaining
to difference between the area of Gata No.
408 recorded as pond in revenue records
situated at Village-Jainuddinpur, Perghana-
Bidahar,
Tehsil-
Tanda,
District
-
Ambedkar Nagar and in the map and
khatauni i.e. 0.477 hectares and 0.455
hectares respectively, this Court, vide order
dated 12.05.2023, protected the interest of
the petitioner and directed the learned
Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the
matter.

5. It would be apt to clarify that area
indicated in khatauni of Gata No. 408 is
0.455 hectares and in the revenue map, the
same has been indicated as 0.477 hectares
and in view of same, the area inadvertently
transcribed in the order dated 12.05.2023
passed by this Court be accordingly read.

6. Today, when the case was called
out, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Standing Counsel, based upon instructions,
stated that there is a difference between
area mentioned in khatauni i.e. 0.455
hectares and the revenue map i.e. 0.477
hectares.

7. It is also not in dispute that on an
application for correction of map, the
report(s) were called from the concerned
revenue official(s) and in response, the
report(s) were submitted by Naib Tehsildar,
Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda and as per these
reports, the revenue map pertaining to Gata
No. 408 area 0.455 hectares mentioned in
the khatauni requires correction. The
reports are annexed with the present
petition as Annexure Nos. 5 & 4,
respectively and the contents of these
reports were taken note of by the
respondent no. 3, as appears from the
impugned
order
dated
05.12.2022.
However, it appears from the impugned
order dated 05.12.2022 that the respondent
no. 3 rejected the application after
observing that no correction is required on
account of the difference of area, in issue,
between khatauni and revenue map.

8. The Revisional Authority also,
taking note of the area, in issue, rejected
the revision of the petitioner. The impugned
order dated 06.03.2023 of the Revisional
Authority also shows that Revisional
Authority failed to take note of the facts
mentioned in the report(s) submitted by
Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda.

9. In the aforesaid background of the
case assailing the orders impugned, Shri
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and
Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate stated that
impugned orders are liable to be interfered
by this Court as Section 30 of the Code,
2006 read with U.P. Revenue Rules, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2016')
ought to have been taken note of by the
respondent no. 3 while considering the
application for correction of map and in the
instant case, the respondent no. 3 has
considered the provisions of 'Chakbandi
Manual', which would not apply after
promulgation of Code, 2006 and Rules
made thereunder.

10.

He
further
submitted
the
provisions of Code, 2006 and Rules, 2016
have
also
not
been
considered
by
respondent no. 2 while dealing with the
revision
preferred
by
the
petitioner
challenging the order dated 05.12.2022.

11. Further submitted that the
admitted position is that there is a
difference between area indicated in the
khatauni and the revenue map as such
District Magistrate/Collector, being the
revenue head of the district, is under
obligation to correct the revenue map so as
to resolve dispute related to area in revenue
record and map.

12. He further submitted that it is the
duty of the District Magistrate/Collector to
correct
the
revenue
entries
and
no
application for this purpose is required. In
the instant case, application for correction
of map was preferred by the petitioner on
account of the proceedings initiated under
Section 67 of Code, 2006, against the
petitioner for eviction alleging that the
petitioner is an encroacher of the land
recorded as pond though the house of the
petitioner is situated, as indicated in the
revenue map, over abadi land. As such, the
petitioner was compelled to prefer the
application for correction of map.

13. It is also stated that in case under
Section 67 of Code, 2006, during the
pendency of the application for correction
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
of map, an order has already been passed as
per which execution, if any, would be
carried out against the petitioner only after
order passed on the application for
correction of map and as per the report(s)
of Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehildar,
Tanda, the correction of map is required in
revenue records and the same has been
declined by the authorities under the Code,
2006.

14. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
Staterespondents stated that impugned order
dated 05.12.2022 and also the order dated
06.03.2023 are basically based upon the
provisions
of
'Chakbandi
Manual'
particularly para 101 as also that the
petitioner was not having any locus to
prefer an application for correction of map
with regard to land recorded as pond. The
difference of area is negligible i.e. less than
three biswa accordingly, no correction in
map is required as per para 101 of
'Chakbandi Manual'.

15. But he could not dispute that
revenue authorities are under obligation to
correct the revenue entries including the
entries related to map and in the instant
case, there is a difference between area
indicated in the 'khatauni' and also in the
revenue map.

16. Considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the contesting
parties and having perused the record
including the orders impugned, as also the
instructions dated 15.05.2023, provided by
the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar,
placed before this Court, a copy of which is
taken on record.

17. The difference between area of
Gata No. 408, detailed above, indicated in
the revenue map and in the khatauni is
undisputed which as per map is 0.477
hectares and as per khatauni is 0.455
hectares. Thus, the issue is that as to
whether the Collector concerned has failed
to discharge his statutory duties by
declining to correct the error or omission in
revenue map.

18. From the impugned order dated
05.12.2022,
it
is
apparent
that
the
respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector/District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar has not
recorded reasons/findings for rejecting the
reports of Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and
Tehsildar, Tanda, whereas according to
these reports, the correction of map is
required. These reports have not been dealt
with by recording reasons.

19. The Collector/District Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar, only taking note of
difference in area, in issue, i.e. 0.022 (1.73
biswa) and Para 101 of 'Chakbandi
Manual' has rejected the report of Naib
Tehsildar, Tanda dated 18.01.2022 and also
of Tehsildar, Tanda dated 01.12.2021 by
saying that reports are not based upon
evidence though the facts are otherwise,

20. Para 101 of 'Chakbandi Manual'
based upon which impugned order has been
passed does not say in specific terms that if
the area is less than three biswas then the
revenue map would not be corrected and
this aspect is evident from the language
couched in the same and being relevant, the
same reads as under:

"101. भुजाओं की नाप से ननकाला हुआ
क्षेत्रफल आधार..............खसरे में कदए गए क्षेत्रफल से कमलाया
जाए। इन दोनों क्षेत्रफलों में अन्तर िा प्रकतशत हर गाटे िे कलए
कनिालिर 'गट्ठा बुि' िे स्तम्भ 14 में दजद किया जाये। आिे एिड
या उसे िम िे खेतों में दस प्रकतशत ति िा अन्तर नगण्य होगा।
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आिे एिड से अकिि वाले खेतों में पाँच प्रकतशत ति िा अन्तर
नहीं माना जायेगा। परन्तु िोई भी अन्तर कजसे नगण्य माना जाये,
तीन कबस्वा से अकिि न होना चाकहए। कजन खेतों में अन्तर ऊपर दी
गई सीमाओां से िम है, उनिा आिार-वर्द िे खसरे में कदया गया
क्षेत्रफल सही माना जायेगा और उसे गट्ठाबुि िे स्तम्भ 15 में
अांकित किया जायेगा। अन्य दशाओां में, मौिे पर भुजाओां िी नाप
में पाया गया क्षेत्रफल सही माना जायेगा और उसे गठ्ठा-बुि िे
स्तम्भ 15 में लाल स्याही से कलखा जायेगा। चिबन्दी िताद मौिे
पर शत प्रकतशत गाटों िी जाांच िरेंगे। चिबन्दी क्ता िी जाांच िे
बाद, गट्ठा-बुि िे स्तम्भ 15 िा क्षेत्रफल, खसरा-चिबन्दी (जी-
च-आिार-पत्र 2-ि स्तम्भ 4 में हर गाटे िे सामने, कलखा जायेगा
जो क्षेत्रफल जोत चिबन्दी आिार-पत्र िे स्तम्भ 2 में कदए गए
क्षेत्रफल से कभन्न हों, उन्हें लाल स्याही से कदखाया जायेगा।) ऐसे
गाटों िे पुराने और नये क्षेत्रफल िा अन्तर गलती माना जायेगा और
उसे जोत चिबन्दी आिार-पत्र 4 में गलती मानिर कलखा जायेगा।
पडताल िी जाांच िे समय, चिबन्दी अकििारी ऐसे सभी गाटों िी
मौिे पर जाांच आवश्यि िरें। चिबन्दी अकििारी भी अपने क्षेत्र िे
गाांवों में इनमें से िुछ गाटों िी मौिे पर पैमाइश िर लें।"

21. The relevant provision in the
Code, 2006 is Section 30 which casts a
duty upon the Collector. It provides that the
Collector shall maintain a map and a field
book (khasra) for each such village and
shall cause to be recorded therein, 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). This Section
reads as under:

"Section 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 minimum number shall be
divided physically in the manner prescribed
and revenue records including map and
khasra shall be corrected accordingly."

22. Other relevant provisions are
Section 32 & 38, both these sections also as
per language couched relate to correction
of revenue record including a map and a
field book (khasra). The same are as under:

"Section 32 : (1) Subject to the
control of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, the Tahsildar, or the Revenue
Inspector shall record, in the manner
hereinafter provided in this Chapter, all
changes in the record of rights (khatauni),
the field book (Khasra) and the map that
may take place, and all transactions that
may affect any of the rights or interests
recorded, and correct therein any errors
proved to have been made in the records
previously prepared: Provided that order
for correction in map shall be passed by the
Collector.

(2) No application for correction
of error under sub-section (1) where the
claim is based solely on possession as well
as involving intricate question of title shall
be maintainable."

"Section 38 : (1) An application
for correction of any error or omission in
the map, filed-book (khasra) or record of
rights (khatauni) shall be made to the
Tahsildar in the manner prescribed.

(2) On receiving an application
under sub-section (1) or on any error or
omission
otherwise
coming
to
his
knowledge, the Tahsildar shall make such
inquiry as may appear to him to be
necessary, and refer the case along with his
report to the Collector in the case of map
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
437
correction and the Sub-Divisional Officer
in matter of other correction.

(3) The case shall be decided by
the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer,
as the case may be, after considering any
objection filed and evidence produced
before him or before the Tahsildar.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Collector or the Sub-Divisional
Officer, as the case may be, under subsection (3), may prefer an appeal to the
Commissioner within a period of thirty
days from the date of such order, and the
decision of the Commissioner shall, 1 [
subject to the provisions of section 210 ] ,
be final.

(5) Any forged or manipulated
entry in the map, the khasra or the record
of rights (khatauni ) may be expunged
under this section.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in other provisions of this Code,
the Revenue Inspector may correct any
undisputed error or omission in the record
of rights (khatauni ) or khasra in such
manner and after making such inquiry, as
may be prescribed. Explanation. - The
power to correct any error or omission
under this section shall not be construed to
include the power to decide a dispute
involving question of title."

23. The procedure for correction of
map has been provided in Rules, 2016.
Rule 25 and Rule 36, being relevant, the
same are being extracted herein-under:

"Rule 25 - map and Field Book
[Section 30(1)]. - For every village, the
Collector shall cause to be prepared and
maintained a Field Book (khasra) in R.C.
Form-4 and also a map (showing the
boundaries of survey number) wherein the
changes referred to in section 30 shall be
recorded.

[(1) The Collector will get
prepared and maintained a Field Book
(khasra) in R.C. Form 4 for each village,
and keep a map (showing boundaries of
khasra numbers or gata number) wherein
the changes referred to in Section 30 shall
be recorded.

(2) The Field Book (khasra) for
the years before Fasli year 1428 shall be
kept in R.C. Form 4 and it shall be
maintained and preserved according to
Governments Orders and Board Orders
issued from time to time.

(3) In the areas where U.R
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Management Act, 1950 was in force, the
Field Books (khasra) of Fasli year 1428
and thereafter shall be kept in R.C. Form 4A in Computerized(digital) form.

(4) At the end of Fasli Year,
Khasra entries will be made unchangeable
(be frozen) and the copy of Field Book
(khasra)
in
PDF
or
any
other
unchangeable format shall be eternally
preserved at State Data Centre at Board
level, or at Government Electronic Cloud,
like Meghraj etc. one printed copy of the
same will be preserved at Tehsil level as
record till 12 years.(5) Entries in R.C.
Form 4-A will be recorded in computerized
(digital) form as per Governments Orders
and Board Orders issued from time to
time.]"

"Rule 36. Correction of error or
omission (Section 38). - (1) Every
application for correction of any error or
omission in the map, field-book (khasra) or
record-of-rights (khatauni) referred to in
section 38(1) shall contain the following
particulars:-

(a) Name, parentage and address
of the applicant.

(b)
The
document
for
the
correction whereof the application is being
made.
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) Particulars of the land to
which the error or omission relates.

(d) The precise nature of the error
or omission.

(e) The application shall be
accompanied by a certified copy of the
map, khasra or khatauni to which the
alleged error or omission relates.

(2) Proceedings for correction of
the map, field book or record-of-rights may
be initiated even without any application
under sub-rule (1), if the error or omission
otherwise comes to the knowledge of the
Tahsildar.

(3) If during the preparation of
new khatauni , partal, spot verification and
local visit or inquiry, the Lekhpal, Naib
Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector or any other
revenue officer has reasons to believe that
any error or omission (including any fake
or fraudulent entry but excluding the errors
or omissions referred to in the explanation
to section 38) has crept in the map, field
book or the record of rights, he shall refer
the matter to the Tahsildar who shall
initiate necessary proceedings under this
rule.

(4) In proceedings for correction
of errors and omission under this rule, the
Tahsildar shall call for a report from the
Revenue Inspector or the Lekhpal and after
affording
reasonable
opportunity
of
hearing to the parties concerned and
making summary inquiry, refer the case to
the Collector in the case of map correction
and to the Sub-Divisional Officer in the
case of other correction along with his
report within a period of thirty days from
the date of registration of the application.

(5) The Collector or the SubDivisional Officer, as the case may be, shall
allow the parties to file objection, if any,
against the report of the Tahsildar
submitted under sub-rule (4), and then
decide the dispute. If the Collector or the
Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be,
is of the opinion that the map, field book or
record of rights contains any error or
omission, he shall direct for the correction
thereof.

(6) An endeavor shall be made to
conclude the proceeding for correction
under section 38 within the period of 45
days from the date of receiving the
application with the report and if the
proceeding is not concluded within such
period the reasons for the same shall be
recorded.

(7) The Revenue Inspector may
correct any undisputed error or omission in
the Record of Rights (khatauni) or khasra
after making such inquiry in the manner
contained in the Land Record Manual."

24. Similar provision i.e. Section 28
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now
repealed), being relevant to the view of this
Court is also extracted herein-under:

"Section 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 fieldbook".

25. This Court, after considering
Section 28, quoted above, as also Section
52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1953"),
in
the
following
judgments
specifically observed that it is the duty of
the Collector to correct any error in the
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
439
revenue map, field book or the record of
rights:

A. In the the judgment passed in
the
case
of
Ghafoor
Vs.
Adl.
Commissioner and Ors., reported in
MANU/UP/0670/1978,
this
Court
observed as under:

"2. Thus after consolidation
operations are over and the notification
under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act is published it is the
Collector who is to maintain the map, fieldbook etc., and such a map and field-book
can be corrected under the Land Revenue
Act and under such circumstances the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act does not go
to the extent of rendering the provisions of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act nugatory, so far
as correction of map prepared during
consolidation operations is concerned.

3. Our attention has been drawn
to another case Mohammad Raza v. Board
of Revenue 1973 AWR 621 in which it was
held
that
a
map
prepared
by
the
consolidation authorities is not necessarily
final and conclusive and a map incorrectly
drawn up cannot be treated as final and
conclusive and can be corrected under
Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act.

4. Looking to the provisions of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the
Land Revenue Act, we are in agreement
with the view expressed in Mohammad
Raza v. Board of Revenue (supra) and we
hold that if a map is subsequently found
incorrect and it is not in conformity with
the document prepared by the consolidation
authorities, the same can in suitable cases
be corrected subsequent to the publication
of the notification under Section 52 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the
Collector in exercise of power under
Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus
we are of the view that the law laid down in
Ganga
Glass
Works
(Private)
Ltd.,
Balawali v. State of U.P. (supra) is not a
good law.

5. Thus the powers of the
Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act for correcting the map in
suitable cases are intact notwithstanding
the map has been prepared by the
consolidation
authorities
who
have
adjudicated the rights and title of the
parties. In case there is any discrepancy in
the map and final document has been
prepared by the consolidation authorities,
the same can be corrected in proceedings
under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act
provided the right, interest and title of the
party which have been finally adjudicated
or have become final are not involved.

6. In the present case after
notification under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
was
published, an application was moved by the
Petitioner for correction of the map and the
Petitioner tendered evidence that the map
was not in conformity with the entries
which were made in C.H. Form 45. It was
obligatory on the authorities to correct the
map in case they were satisfied that there
was some discrepancy between the map
and the entries in C.H. Form 45 and it is on
a mistaken view of law that they have
refused to grant this relief to the
Petitioner."

B. In the judgment passed in the
case of Ali Khan Vs. Ram Prasad and
Ors., reported in MANU/UP/0589/1980,
this Court observed as under:

"6.
The
only
point
for
consideration in this appeal is whether the
Civil Court has the jurisdiction to make
corrections in the map prepared by the
consolidation authorities.

7. If the village had not been
denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, the obvious
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mistake in the map could have been
rectified by moving an application under
Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act. It is, however, admitted on all
hands that the village had already been
denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this
situation, there was no remedy open to the
Appellant for getting the needful correction
done. Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
provides
for
the
preparation of the revenue records after the
enforcement of the final consolidation
scheme. Section 27 reads:

27. As soon as may be after the
final Consolidation Scheme has come into
force, the District Deputy Director of
Consolidation shall cause to be prepared
for each village a new map, field book and
record
of
rights
in
respect
of
the
consolidation area, on the basis of the
entries in the map as corrected under
Section 7, the khasra chakbandi, the annual
register prepared under Section 10 and the
allotment orders as finally made and issued
in accordance with the provisions of this
Act. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall subject to
such modifications and alterations as may
be
prescribed
be
followed
in
the
preparation of the said map and records.

(2) All entries in the record of
rights prepared in accordance with the
provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be
presumed to be true until the contrary is
proved.

(3) After the issue of notification
under Section 52, the Collector shall,
instead of the map, field-book and record of
rights previously maintained by him,
maintain the map, field-book and record of
rights prepared in accordance with the
provisions of Sub-section (1) and the
provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall apply to the
maintenance of such map, field book and
record of rights, as the case may be.

8. In view of Sub-section (3) of
Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, after the denotification of the
village under Section 52, the Collector has
been enjoined to maintain the map, fieldbook and record of rights prepared in
accordance with the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 27. The provisions of
Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act have been made applicable for
the maintenance of such map, field book
and record of rights.

9. Consequently, the Appellant
moved an application under Section 28 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act for making a
correction in the map to bring it in line
with the record of rights. The revenue
Court, however, took the view that it had no
jurisdiction. The same was confirmed even
by the appellate authority. The Appellant
was, under the circumstances, compelled to
file a regular suit in the Civil Court for
injunction restraining the Respondent from
interfering with his possession over the
disputed area of plot No. 320 and also for
the correction of the map. As stated earlier
the trial Court decreed the suit, but the
appellate Court took the view that the Civil
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit.

10. It may be pointed out that if
the Appellant had remedy under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 49
would bar the suit. But the Appellant had
no
remedy
before
the
consolidation
authorities on account of the denotification
of the village under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act. Besides, the
title of the parties had already been
determined
by
the
consolidation
authorities. But while preparing the record,
the area shown in the map was not in
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
441
conformity with the area shown in the
annual register. This was an obvious
mistake to be rectified. The Appellant tried
to get the same rectified by the revenue
Court, further failed. He next attempted to
get the same relief in the Civil Court, but
there also he failed. Thus, he has been
running from pillar to post to get an
obvious mistake rectified, but of no avail.

11. The learned Counsel for the
appellants cited Smt. Rekha Singh v. The
State of U.P. (supra). In that case, Justice
O.P. Trivedi (as he then was) took the view
:

Under Section 28, the Collector is
empowered to cause to be recorded
annually or of such intervals as may be
prescribed by Government all changes in
the map regarding boundaries of each
village and field. He has also been
empowered to correct any errors which are
shown to have been made in such map or
field book. It is clear that Section 28 does
not empower the Collector to make any
changes or alterations in the entries of
'khatauni' . He can make changes in the
field book or khasra and the map only
under specified conditions.

He also found that the power
exercised under Section 28 by the Collector
is a non-judicial power, which is well
settled by a Full Bench of this Court (?
Board of Revenue) in Raj Kumar v.
Bhagwat Singh, 1956 AWR 202. He further
found:

This implies that the power which
may be exercised under Section 28
administratively should not adversely affect
the rights of any one. The moment a certain
error is a disputed one, the Collector
cannot obviously decide it u/S. 28 without
affecting the rights of the disputants. In
conferring power of correcting errors in the
field-book and the map under Section 28 in
a unilateral manner by a executive order
the Legislature clearly did not intend to
confer on the Collector power to make
correction in the field book and the map in
respect of disputed entries. Where there is a
disputed error in the map or khasra it is the
Civil Court only which is competent to
adjudicate upon it. under Section 57 of the
Act, all entries in the record of rights
prepared in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter IV of the Act are presumed to be
true until the contrary is proved and the
entries which are binding on all Revenue
Courts can be challenged only before the
Civil Court. The presumption of correctness
about these entries must hold until the
contrary is proved before the Civil Court. It
is, therefore, clear from Section 57 of the
Act that in the case of a disputed error in
the field book and the map or the record of
rights prepared in accordance with Chapter
IV of the Act the Collector has no power to
decide whether there is an error or there is
no error and it is the Civil Court alone
which can adjudicate upon a disputed
error............All disputes regarding the
annual registers and records of rights must
have been disposed of and decided by the
Record Officer under Section 51 of the Act
in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Section 41 and after the close of
these operations the khasras, khataunis and
the maps of these villages became final." In
the instant case, in the first instance, the
error has crept in only in the map which
was not in conformity with the annual
register. Therefore, the case in fully covered
by Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
and the mistake could have been rectified.
Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act would also not stand as a bar
inasmuch as the rights and title of the
parties had already been decided by the
consolidation authorities in respect of the
disputed plot. The only dispute was that the
map
prepared
by
the
consolidation
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities at the close of the consolidation
scheme was not in accordance with the
record of rights.

12. In Ganga Glass Works
(Private) Ltd. Balwali v. The State of U.P.,
MANU/UP/0040/1972MANU/UP/0040/197
2 : AIR 1972 All. 158 Justice B. N. Lokur
(as he then was) took the view that a map
prepared by the consolidation authorities
can be corrected by those authorities alone
and the revenue authorities cannot resort to
Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to
make corrections in that map. Section 42A
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
does enable the authorities concerned to
correct the size and shape of the plots in the
map prepared with the size recorded in the
record of rights. Similarly, the shape also
would be an error which would come
within the purview of Section 42A of the Act
and can be corrected by the consolidation
authorities.

13.
The
case
is
also
distinguishable inasmuch as, in the instant
case,
there
had
already
been
a
denotification under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
and,
therefore, there was no question of making
an application under Section 42A for the
correction of the map and, in this situation,
it was open to the Appellant to have got the
map corrected by moving an application
under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act.

14. In Jaggu v. Patan Din 1960
RD 63 the boundaries of chak Nos. 287 and
272 shown by the consolidation authorities
in the map prepared by them did not accord
with the record of rights prepared by them.
Taking advantage of this mistake, the
Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff's
possession. The Plaintiff, therefore, applied
to the Collector concerned for correction of
the map after the close of the consolidation
operation.
The
Additional
Collector
dismissed the Plaintiff's application on the
ground that the map had become final and
conclusive under Section 28 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act and he had
no jurisdiction to correct it. The Plaintiff
then filed the suit giving rise to the present
second appeal. The Defendant raised the
plea that the suit was barred by Section 49
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The argument was repelled. Reference was
made
to
Section
27
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act.
It
contemplates that the entries in the record
of rights prepared in accordance with the
provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be
presumed to be true until the contrary is
proved. Thus, presumption of correctness is
only
rebuttable.
There
is
no
such
presumption of correctness with regard to
the map. Section 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act
also speaks of the rights of tenure holders
to land. If the map does not accord with the
record of rights, the error could certainly
be corrected by the revenue authorities
after the close of the consolidation
operations.

15. On an analysis of -the
relevant provisions of the Act and the cases
cited before us, we are satisfied that the
mistake could have been rectified by the
Revenue Court and the cases cited on
behalf of the Appellant in support of the
contention that the Civil Court has the
jurisdiction are distinguishable.

16. There is, however, another
aspect of the matter which cannot be lost
sight of. The Revenue Court, which was
competent to entertain the application
under Section 28, however, erroneously
held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain
the application under Section 28. The order
was confirmed even in revision by the
Additional Commissioner, Bareilly, by his
order dated 2nd March, 1977.
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443

17. It is now well settled that even
an erroneous judgment by a competent
Court between the parties can operate resjudicata. In Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh
1979 AWC 635 (SC), the Appellant filed a
civil suit claiming one fourth share on the
ground that he was the fourth son of his
father. An objection was raised by the
Respondents that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction. A preliminary issue was
framed and it was held by the Subordinate
Judge that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the
return of plaint for presentation to the
proper revenue Court. When the Appellant
filed the suit in the revenue Court, the
petition was returned holding that the
revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the
suit. Thereupon, the Appellant again
instituted Suit No. 13 of 1960 in the Court
of the Civil Judge. That suit failed
throughout on the ground of res-judicata. It
was contended before the Supreme Court
that the appellants were driven from pillar
to post for the redress of their grievances.
When they instituted the suit in the Civil
Court, the Court held that it had no
jurisdiction to try. When the suit was filed
in the revenue Court, the said Court took a
contrary view. Where could the Appellant
go then ? The Supreme Court repelled the
argument and observed as under :

We do sympathise with the
appellant's dilemma but they were wrongly
advised to do as they did. Either they ought
to have followed the matter in the First
Civil suit and insisted upto the end that the
suit was triable by a Civil Court, or they
would have taken the matter further before
the higher authorities and Court from the
order of the Revenue Court and persisted
that the matter whether the Civil Court had
jurisdiction to decide the dispute between
the parties or not was res-judicata, the
Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to go
behind the decision of the Civil Court. The
appellants did neither. It is unfortunate that
due to the wrong paths which they followed
under wrong advice they have ultimately to
fall on the technical ground of res-judicata
but there is no way out.

Again, in Upendra Nath Bose v.
Lall 1940 AWR (PC) 147 the Privy Council
laid down that there would be res-judicata
in regard to the question of lack of
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the
matter. If the Defendant appears and an
issue is raised and decided then the
decision on the question of jurisdiction will
operate as res-judicata.

18.