JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This revision has been filed by Sri Munshi Lal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 17-1-1984 upholding the order of the S.D.O. dated 30-9-1982 in a case under Section 41 L.R. Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that opposite party Vidyaram applied to the S.D.O. for the declaration of his plot No. 255 area 16 biswa 10 biswansi. This is adjacent to plot no. 254 which is recorded as Gaon Sabha property but which is in occupation of the revisionist. The measurements were conducted by the Supervisor Kanungo and he submitted his report to the court on 27-5-1982. Munshi Ram revisionist and others filed objections alleging that the demarcation had not been legally made under the rules and is against the village map. The objection of Munshi Lal was rejected on the ground that he had no title on plot no. 254 and that his possession was unlawful, hence his rights were not affected and accordingly the demarcation was confirmed. An appeal was filed against that order which was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned orders and record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the judgment of the Additional Commissioner is no judgment in the eye of law because he has not discussed the evidence as was legally required from him, hence his judgment has to be set aside. He further argued that a separate case for the correction of map was going on in the court of Collector and it was decided on 2-5-81 and the boundaries over plots no. 255 and 254 were ordered to be corrected by the Addl. Collector vide his order dated 2-5-81 hence the measurements should have been made according to the corrected map but it was not done because the applicant did not file any copy of the corrected map and continued to rely on the copy of the old map which was filed by him on 28-7-1978. The measurements being contrary to the amended map are liable to be rejected. 5. I understand that there is much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The copy of the order of the Addl. Collector dated 2-5-1981 is on record which shows that the boundaries of plots no. The measurements being contrary to the amended map are liable to be rejected. 5. I understand that there is much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The copy of the order of the Addl. Collector dated 2-5-1981 is on record which shows that the boundaries of plots no. 255 and 254 were ordered to be corrected by the Additional Collector. It was the duty of the applicant namely the opposite party to have brought this fact to the knowledge of the S.D.O. and to have filed a copy of the amended map before him so that measurements could have been made in accordance with the amendment ordered by the Addl. Collector. In such circumstances the measurements having been made on the basis of the old unamended map cannot be taken to be correct and must be rejected and a fresh demarcation deserves to be made on the basis of the amended map. 6. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed and the orders passed by all the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded back to the S.D.O. to get fresh demarcation made in accordance with the amended map as per orders of the Additional Collector dated 2-5-1981.