JUDGMENT 1. This larger Full the Act. His failure on this account is not Bench has been constituted by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, by his order dated February 9, 1982 for deciding the following question referred by learned Member, Mr. Maheshwar Prasad by his order dated January 25, 1982 :- "Whether revenue courts have jurisdiction to effect demarcation under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act between plots which may all fall within Abadi land or where the dispute is about a boundary between Abadi and non-Abadi land." 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to effect demarcation of Abadi plots, whether in relation to other Abadi plots or those of a non-Abadi or agricultural nature, and only Civil Court has jurisdiction in such a case. Reliance has been placed on Brij Mohan v. Anant Lal, 1938 R.D. 537 and Mohd. Ahsan v. Tahira Bibi, 1947 R.D. 157. 4. It has been argued in reply that Section 41 read with Section 1 of the Land Revenue Act confers state-wide jurisdiction on the Collector in the matter of summary settlement of boundary dispute and no distinction has been made between Abadi and non-Abadi land. As such, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts fully extends to Abadi, as well as non-Abadi plots. Law and order are inextricably involved in revenue proceedings, hence the summary procedure for settlement of land disputes pending more detailed adjudication of rights in the Civil Courts. The word 'shall' in Section 41 obliges the Collector to effect demarcation whenever there is a boundary dispute, irrespective of the Abadi or non-Abadi nature of the land, so long as a survey map exists. Reliance has been placed on 1949 R.D. 144 which is a later decision of this court in which Brij Mohan v. Anant Lal, 1938 R.D. 537 has been distinguished and departed from. 5. In Brij Mohan v. Anant Lal, 1938 R.D. 537 it was held as follows: - "Section 41 Land Revenue Act does not apply at all to a case of dispute between tenants about the boundaries of a plot in the Abadi. Such dispute is a matter purely for the civil court to decide." 6. It was held in Mohammad Ahsan v. Tahira Bibi Mst. Such dispute is a matter purely for the civil court to decide." 6. It was held in Mohammad Ahsan v. Tahira Bibi Mst. and others, 1947 R.D. 157 following Brij Mohan v. Anant Lal, 1938 R.D. 537, as follows: - "Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to demarcate Abadi plots." 7. It has been held in Suraj Bax Singh Thakur v. Rani Deo Kunwar, 1919 III R.D. 266 as follows: - "If an application for demarcation is made under Section 41 Land Revenue Act, the Court is bound to demarcate and the insufficiency of existing map is no ground for refusal as it can be fixed on the basis of possession, leaving other side, if dissatisfied, to have his remedy in the Civil Court." 8. It was held in Jai Ram and others v. Mohammad Yusuf, 1934 R.D. 332 as follows: - "It is clearly desirable that a boundary dispute should be settled as far as possible by the Revenue Courts, in order that the party is not satisfied with that decision should redress in the Civil Courts with whom the ultimate decision must lie. The Revenue Court should handle the case in a summary fashion, carrying out the demarcation in the way prescribed in Section 41(1) Land Revenue Act, that is to say, on the basis of the existing survey maps." 9. It was held in Sheo Tahal and others v. Suraj Bali Lal, 1941 R.D. 898 as follows: - "Where the boundary of Kishtwar plot in the Abadi is shown in the Kishtwar Survey, it can and should be demarcated through the Revenue Court." 10. It was held in Badri Narain Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Singh, 1949 R.D, 144 as follows: - "The word 'boundaries' in Section 41(1) of the Land Revenue Act must be taken to refer to the boundaries of a village, Mahal, or field as shown in the map maintained under Section 28 of the Act. All disputes regarding boundaries shown in such maps must be dealt with by Collector under Section 41 irrespective of whether the fields whose boundaries are to be corrected lie within the Abadi or otherwise. Where a partition had taken place after last settlement the partition map takes the place of the last settlement map and should be considered to be the survey map referred to in Section 41." 11. Where a partition had taken place after last settlement the partition map takes the place of the last settlement map and should be considered to be the survey map referred to in Section 41." 11. Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is as follows: - "Section 41. Settlement of boundary dispute - (1) Ali disputes regarding boundaries shall be decided as far as possible on the basis of existing survey maps; but if this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual possession." (2) If, in the course of an enquiry into a dispute under this section the Collector is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, or if it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupants of the property within a period of three months previous to the commencement of the inquiry, the Collector (a) in the first case shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person in possession (b) in the second case, shall put the person so dispossessed in possession, and shall then fix the boundary accordingly." 12. A plain reading of Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1905 shows that all that is required to bring a matter within the purview of this section is the existence of a dispute regarding boundary or boundaries. It is nowhere indicated that there is any reservation or exception made in respect of any particular class of land. In fact, the word used in sub-section (2) is 'property'; the word 'land' is not used at all, in the section. Our attention has not been drawn by the learned counsel to any provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or indeed of any other enactment where under any bar or restriction is placed on the jurisdiction of the Collector in settling a boundary dispute under Section 41, in the event that some or all of the plots involved are of the nature of 'Abadi' land. On the other hand notice may be taken of the fact that Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act uses the term 'Shall' as against 'may' used in the earlier enactments that preceded this Act, viz. Section 144 of the N.W. Land Revenue Act No. 19 of 1873 and Section 106 of the Avadh Land Revenue Act No. 18 of 1870. Section 144 of the N.W. Land Revenue Act No. 19 of 1873 and Section 106 of the Avadh Land Revenue Act No. 18 of 1870. in postulating that the boundary disputes are to be settled as far as possible on the basis of the existing survey map and if this is not possible, on the basis of the actual possession. Likewise sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is a new addition for further contingencies arising out of a boundary dispute, based all the time on the concept of possession as the criterion for summary settlement of boundary disputes. There is accordingly no reason to exclude an Abadi plot from the purview of Section 41. 13. We may now examine as to whether, in applying Section 41 Land Revenue Act, any distinction needs to be observed between the case of a boundary dispute as between an agricultural piece of land and an Abadi plot as is the position in the present case, and a situation where the boundary dispute exists is between two or more wholly Abadi plots. We have little hesitation in holding that so long as the disputed plots are shown in the existing survey map, the revenue courts have full jurisdiction to summarily decide both these kinds of cases. If under Section 41 U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. In the present case it is not contested that the plots are shown in the latest survey map. It would, therefore, be entirely proper for the Collector to decide the boundary dispute between the agricultural plot and the Abadi plot in accordance with the survey map. The position would be no different if both the plots in dispute were shown as Abadi in the survey map. 14. It may be possible to take the further view that even if no survey map exists, the provisions of Section 41 relating to possession would be applicable in deciding a dispute between purely Abadi plots. We need not, however, go into this question here as it is not included in the terms of reference. 15. 14. It may be possible to take the further view that even if no survey map exists, the provisions of Section 41 relating to possession would be applicable in deciding a dispute between purely Abadi plots. We need not, however, go into this question here as it is not included in the terms of reference. 15. In view of what has been stated above, our answer to the issue referred to us is that the Collector is fully competent under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to decide a boundary dispute in respect of plots shown in the survey map, irrespective of whether some or all of such plot-tall within the area shown as Abadi and even if all the plots in dispute are shown within the Abadi area. The ruling in Brij Mohan v. Anant Lal, 1938 R.D. 537 thus stands overruled.