JUDGMENT 1. This reference has been made by Sri Sita Ram Pandey, learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, 'who by his order dated September 9, 1987 has recommended that the order of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur, dated March 9, 1987 be set aside, and application of Ram Sunder for correction of area shown in the map be corrected. 2. The facts of the case are that Ram Kuber and Ram Sunder have made an application under section 28 of U.P.L.R. Act before Collector, Sultanpur, on 3101985. They have set out the case that applicant and Jag Narayan were previously bhumidhars of Khasra no 259/2, area 3 biswa 5 dhurs; that on the death of Jag Narayan, his sons Ram Bodh and applicants came in possession, and that from previous no. 259/2, new numbers 259 and 269 were constituted. Further, no. 261 area 2 biswa 5 dhurs was included in applicant's chak; plot no. 259 was included in the chak of opposite party, Devi Prasad. Similarly, plot no. 260 was included as property of Gaon Sabha. He states that the map of the plots is not correctly made and his area of 2 Biswa and 5 dhurs is shown only as 1 biswa 8 dhurs. Thus, the area is short by 17 dhurs, Against this plot no. 259, area 13 dhurs is shown as 1 biswa 12 dhurs. This plot has 17 dhurs mare. Hence the need for correction of map. He further states that opposite party no. 3, Ram Bodh, is out of the country and, hence, has been impleaded as opposite party no. 3, 3. This application was sent for enquiry and report. Lekhpal has prepared a Site Plan and has prepared changes in line with applicant's case. The Tahsildar has forwarded his report on 141986. The report of Supervisor Kanungo is dated 2031986. Chief Revenue Officer by his order dated 931987 has dismissed the application of applicant Ram Kuber. 4. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Sunder has filed a revision which has been referred to this Court for acceptance and correction in the map. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 6. What then is the scope of proceeding under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act? Is it limited to an error or omission of a clerical nature in the extant map? 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 6. What then is the scope of proceeding under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act? Is it limited to an error or omission of a clerical nature in the extant map? Where the area calculated or extracted from the shape and size of the map is incidentally found less than in the record of right Khatoni or C.H. Form 45 It is open to correction. A view such as this finds ample support from 1973 AWR 620 , AIR 1972 Alld. 156, 1981 ALJ 270 and 1981 RD 77. 7. The bearing of its relation with Sections 33/39, L.R. Act is not a lame parallel. Both have concern, exclusive and insistent, with incidental errors that have crept in. Both have objective relation with the records: Sections 33/39 L.R. Act with Khatauni and Section 28 L.R. Act with Khasra and map. Both proceedings will have to do without ground position at the actual spot. A sort of wrestling only with the records. Both proceedings are essentially judicial. The practical implication is that provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 and Civil Procedure Code. 1908 will apply with all vengeance More, the end result is not final as section 40A, Land Revenue Act makes clear in respect to both. The parallel ends here to give way to differences that too have elements of deep quality. Section 33 L.R. Act concerns with Khatoni that bears a presumption of correctness; map and Khasra even after rectification do not make claim to be correct in contents. Secondly, and this aspect is paradoxical Section 33 Khatoni, larger in value, is correctable by S.D.O. Not at all map and Khasra. Their rectification will follow an order by a Court presided over by no less a person than Collector. So that is that. 8. Map correction is not an occasion involving any dispute of tenancy rights or interest: not a matter relating to a boundary or claim of possession or trespass. This is supportable from 1956 RD 146, 1972 RD 176, 1979 RD 76, 1973 ALJ 824 (HC). These have elucidated that scope of section 28, Land Revenue Act is so much the more circumscribed. 9. In 1981 RD 170 the mistake consisted in reversal of plot numbers 170 and 171 at the time of numbering in the consolidation map. This is supportable from 1956 RD 146, 1972 RD 176, 1979 RD 76, 1973 ALJ 824 (HC). These have elucidated that scope of section 28, Land Revenue Act is so much the more circumscribed. 9. In 1981 RD 170 the mistake consisted in reversal of plot numbers 170 and 171 at the time of numbering in the consolidation map. The case expresses & enforces that not Section 28 L.R. Act but declaration of rights under section 229B, Z.A. Act is the remedy for relief. The difference in area in the two plots was to be settled by demarcation under section 41 L.R. Act. No correction of map was deemed necessary. Why? The answer is proffered by 1982 RD 240 (sic). Plaintiff, Govind Ram's new plot no. 1981 shown in consolidation map as 1995. Not the location at the spot but reverse placement in consolidation map: No. 1995 in place of 1981. The suit was decreed under section 229B, ZA and LR Act. The Board of Revenue Observed: The Plaintiff should not be dragged for different litigations in different courts, such as for correction of map. If such declaration is granted, the map is bound to be corrected by the Collector. If declaration is refused, then, plaintiff is to go for correction of map and then again for declaration''. 10. It is plain that map is not an annual register prescribed under section 33 LR Act: 1956 RD 434, 1956 RD 163. So, presumption of correctness of map area is not available: 1956 RD 146, 1982 RD 171. The entry of area even after rectification is not final: 1973 AWR 621 . An insight into all that goes before leads one, to two inevitable conclusions: Importantly, to remember is: map, its size and shape, the area shown, is so much the less important. Secondly, to a conceptualization. A relief that in law avails under one provision, as so happens here under section 229B, ZA & LR Act, excludes resort to any other summary remedy to accomplish the same end. 11. The counsel refers to Tahsildar's inquiry report. It is beneath my notice. The jurisdiction is exclusively Collector's. Under what provision to call a report from Tahsildar or Consolidation department? Can judicial function, in the absence of express provision in the Act, be delegated? 11. The counsel refers to Tahsildar's inquiry report. It is beneath my notice. The jurisdiction is exclusively Collector's. Under what provision to call a report from Tahsildar or Consolidation department? Can judicial function, in the absence of express provision in the Act, be delegated? I see when reports can be called are so plainly stated: Section 33 (2) and section 41 LR Act. A characteristic of judicial proceeding is that evidence Act will apply: 1962 RD 10 . So the inquiry report will go down, as inadmissible in evidence: AIR 1976 All. 121 (HC). On the point I am on, 1977 RD 234 (B.R., F.B.) is on my side: word 'Collector' in both section 27 (3) C.H. Act and section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act does not include an Assistant Collector First Class. It beats me, then, how an enquiry report from Tahsildar can become the foundation of an order passed by Collector. When S.D.O. cannot aspire, can S.K's enquiry report be the ultimate basis? Collector's order is not open to challenge on facts as appeal is not open. His is the first court and the last court on facts. So Collector be himself doing with skill and utmost piety. 12. The Act itself does not lay down any procedure for the correction of mistake in the map and the field book. According to 1972 RD 181 (B.R/F.B.), not overruled on this issue, there is no delegation of powers to the subordinate revenue officers either under Section 223 or 227 of the Act. It is plain that there is no mention of words 'dispute', 'Inquiry' or 'order' in section 28 Land Revenue Act in contrast to sections 33, 39, 40, 41 and 43 which relate to disputes involving rights of disputants. What is, then, to inquire? What substantial dispute or position to report by subordinates? This procedure undermines the integrity of that conceived as judicial and that vests jurisdiction only in one: Collector. The unfailing practice to order Tahsildar: Inquire and report, is unsupportable in law. How I would wish I could earnestly state with a fervour: Learned Collectors: exercise your jurisdiction on your own, i.e. behold your judicial obligation with the scorn of a support by an inquiry report, am sure this burden is not tiresome. The first responsibility is applicant's to demonstrate or adequately show that less area in map is enmeshed. How I would wish I could earnestly state with a fervour: Learned Collectors: exercise your jurisdiction on your own, i.e. behold your judicial obligation with the scorn of a support by an inquiry report, am sure this burden is not tiresome. The first responsibility is applicant's to demonstrate or adequately show that less area in map is enmeshed. How to calculate or extract the area from a map is significantly the crux. Applicant makes a serious charge: he is to cut the guardian knot. It is well to remember that record of area in the Khasra, sure to be filed, and in agreement with Khatoni area, will be an evidence pitted against applicant's case. Why? 1981 RD 303 (HC) illustrates, 13. 'Khasra' is prepared after calculating the area from the map and the record of area in the Khasra is not the original entry. It is derived from the field book and the map. I4. The entry of area in Khasra is in relation to map. It is only when applicant has discharged his part of the obligation, that Collector's concern is laid open. 15. One cannot begin by taking applicant's averments as shown or help him pick up the result like fish on a fishmonger's slab. This happens when Collector causes the Tahsil or Consolidation subordinates to enquire and put up the result for applicant's appropriation. This is not inclusive in Collector's duty. 16. It beats me why seek a correction in map area even if it is incorrect? A tenant is recorded bhumidhar in current Khatoni: he is in undisturbed possession. These two positive features alone are integral to final satisfaction. A map has no presumption of correctness: 1978 RD 129 (HC), 1973 AWR 620 (HC). Why then (sic). The counsel urged that map correction is indispensable as it forms the basis of settlement of boundary dispute under section 41 L.R. Act. I agree. But the full area is in Khasra: This is required to be filed under section 41 L.R. Act. This will serve the purpose. 17. The counsel envisaged the need for correction of map on one more ground. Say, when the location of a well, graves, trees or construction inside a field in a map is in serious contention with neighbour's. This will also not stand. These things are shown in map by symbols. This will serve the purpose. 17. The counsel envisaged the need for correction of map on one more ground. Say, when the location of a well, graves, trees or construction inside a field in a map is in serious contention with neighbour's. This will also not stand. These things are shown in map by symbols. In the words of My Lord K.M, Dayal, J. in 1982 A11 LJ 533 (HC), 1981 RD 217: The sides of the fields are surveyed and measured. The structures within these field are not measured or plotted on their exact location. They are shown inside the boundaries to denote their existence. In consolidation the plots are rearranged, fresh boundaries are made, the roads and drains are carved out, it was obviously not possible to have the pleas, even having the same area exactly on the same spot. For that the comparative table has to be examined closely and only then the decision can be arrived at. 18. The need for correction, if the same is surely less than in record of rights, is potentially necessary when the corrected shape or size of the map is to be plotted on the ground to help relocate or refix the boundaries of a field. Map correction on its own, without subsequent plotting on the ground, seems to have no meaning. 19. In the case going space here, the applicant, a powerful man, has encroached on strips or margins of fields of his neighbour's. He has set out to legitimise the trespass through a court process, The specter is that no provision is efficacious. Section 28 L.R. Act is whereby the encroached area on the spot, irrelevant as a factor in map correction, is held up for his actual area to help extend the shape and size of the map. The map, then, becomes the basis for recovery of old/obscure boundaries but for relaying or refixation of new boundaries under section 41 L.R. Act. I cannot share and serve such perception. ' 20. Next to evaluate whether map correction involves an error apparent on the record itself or includes too the position on the ground. 1956 RD 146 says correction is of a mistake which as apparent on record soon thereafter it admits correction from spot too 1972 RD 179, treating proceedings as nonjudicial, is confident that errors should be shown at the spot to have been made. 1956 RD 146 says correction is of a mistake which as apparent on record soon thereafter it admits correction from spot too 1972 RD 179, treating proceedings as nonjudicial, is confident that errors should be shown at the spot to have been made. Proceeding is judicial as from September 30, 1963. In 1988 RD 338 D.D.C. has called a report; from Rectangulation Officer after measurement of the area at the spot. This is not a case under section 28 L.R. Act. 1981 RD 303 (HC) says, once an area and measurement on the spot tallied with the map and the field book at the time of partal the Khasra should have been corrected With profound respect, when area in the Khasra is not in line with the map; it is area in Khasra that is open to correction. This is to govern by an admitted principle. Whether spot area is an issue of vital concern and calculation is neither asked for nor answered, Still a recent decision not gone in reports Revisions No. 3 and 4 (Sale of 198586/Lucknow Smt. Jagrani v. State of U.P.) has touched this in the light of 1972 RD 176, an overruled ruling, stating that 'Correction of map involves only a correction of revenue records on the basis of position on the spot. With respect, this observation will go down per incuriam as reliance is on an upturned authority and for absence of any legal provision for drastic conclusion. I see so much the more validity in the formulation in an unreported case: Revision No. 251 (L.R./197980) Aligarh 2931983 Gaon/Sabha versus Girdhari Singh, which is specific No inquiry at the spot is necessary. 21. My Lord B.L. Yadav, J. in 1986 RD 302 (HC): 1986 ALJ 1298 is clear: In consolidation operations the area and map are corrected after carrying out measurements on the spot. If petitioners were aggrieved, they should have filed objections at the proper stage. Village maps are revised under section 7 of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. The petitioner admittedly filed no objection, appeal or revision during consolidation operations. His claim is barred under section 49 C.H. Act. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 28 Land Revenue Act and allow correctness of entries or area of a plot to do se will be in excess of jurisdiction. 22. The petitioner admittedly filed no objection, appeal or revision during consolidation operations. His claim is barred under section 49 C.H. Act. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 28 Land Revenue Act and allow correctness of entries or area of a plot to do se will be in excess of jurisdiction. 22. Only when discrepancy in area of map and in the record of rights is seen not involving rights finally decided under section 9 or 9A of C.H. Act, the same is correctable 1979 RD 76: 1979 ALJ 331, 1978 AWC 836 . 23. One example is worth a wilderness of abstraction table will be apt: The following table will be apt: 1 2 3 4 5 Khatauni area Map area Khasra area Spot area Order to make U/s 33 U/s 28 U/s 28 (a) 200 200 1180 Khasra area be corrected to 200 (b) 200 1180 200 Map area be made 200 (c) 200 200 200 No correction (d) 200 200 200 22~0 No correction The entry of area in Khatoni prevails over area in map. The entry of area in map dominates over area of Khasra. The area measured on the spot, column no. 4 entry, in harmony with area of either with columns 1, 2 or 3 entry, helps in reaching an inference as the situation works out. 24. I am not sure whether spot area, the entry in column 4, is a factor of calculation in map correction. 25. Perhaps, more often (d) clause position grounded on the charge that map area is less than the area at the spot (criteria is Khatoni area) that applications are moved under section 28 L R, Act. With malafide intent (d) clause position is set forth as (c) clause to confuse and realise a territorial ambition. 26. The only case under section 28 which has graduated to receive attention of a Division Bench, High Court, is 1981 ALJ 271: 1981 ACJ 172. The Bench was called upon to appraise the soundness of 1973 ALJ 824 (HC), a case that elaborates the scope of section: debars Collector to make correction of disputed entry. The Bench did not pronounce. More, the case set up is that area of plot is less in map by 32 acres. This is treated as taken. My distress is deep as I fail to get so little. The Bench did not pronounce. More, the case set up is that area of plot is less in map by 32 acres. This is treated as taken. My distress is deep as I fail to get so little. Is 1973 ALJ 824 (HC) legally operative? This case came up for consideration before 1977 RD 234 (B.R./F.B. 5 members). The Bench distinguished the said case as dispute therein has arisen as it respects a map prepared during Record operations and it had a case of map made in consolidation. With profound regards, High Court in a careful and definitive judgment has elucidated the scope of section 28 L.R. Act; It's nonjudicial nature and correct only those errors that are not disputed. The factual distinction was not of concern. With all that, 1977 RD 234 (B.R./F.B.) is the pronouncement that I am to govern myself by. The entry of area in Khatoni significantly matters. If that is all right, as here is, there is no occasion for applicant to be disturbed about. 27. One point of moment is that if a map is to be corrected or challenged, it can be done in an application under section 28 L.R. Act. There is no jurisdiction to deviate from the consolidation map in any other suit or proceeding, say, under section 41 L.R. Act: 1981 (2) RD 217 (HC). 28. When consolidation is on, section 42A CH Act does enable the authorities to reconcile the size in the map with the size recorded in the record of rights. Similarly, the shape also would be an error within the purview of section 42A of the Act. This is supportable from AIR 1972 All 138. AREA EXTRACTION 29. Say, A is held entitled, to a plot, area 3210 in consolidation. The area at the spot shall be given by measurement. The distances shall be noted in field book According to U.P. Survey Manual, para 55: When field book is completed, the area of every plot of ground given in the maps must be computed in the office: they will be calculated with the area comb by each Lekhpal for his village and by a professional estimater. The two independent calculations must agree within one per cent, before the result can be accepted. 30. The two independent calculations must agree within one per cent, before the result can be accepted. 30. For extracting area of an square or triangle the following method is used: 1 reproduce this from Law of Survey by J.C. Mishra (Hari Law Agency) 114. Length 60+40 Gatha=10G 1/2=50 Gatha Bredth 20 + 30 Gatha = 50 1/2=25 Gatha 50x25=1250Biswansi To convert into bigha, multiply by 400 because that makes a bigha: 1250x1 25 == 3.210 400 8 31. How to extract area of a parallelogram, triangle, trapezium, rectangle and other irregular figures of a map? The case law is nonexistent. My plea is an alibi of exposition because of my striking incompetence. It is proper to rely on books of survey; (1) Surveying and Mensuration By J.H. Twigg, (2) Essentials in Practical Survey By J.N. Nagu, (3) U.P. Survey Manual By V.G. Bakshi. (4) Law of Survey and Commissions By J.C. Mishra. (5) Surveying, Volume One By Dr. B.C. Punnia. 32. The case set forth by Ram Sunder bears that error in map is clerical. Excluding the enquiry report from consideration, no data or tangible evidence is to show that map area of plot no. 261 is short by 0017 and is inclusive in plot no. 259 which adjoins. No survey expert examined. Application fails. Also fails because Ram Bodh, opposite party no. 3. recorded as cotenant in Khatoni of 1391 to 1395 F is not served. In his absence full and effective order cannot be made. 33. It surprises and shocks that Additional Commissioner and Additional Collector are innocent of statements of legal conception mediated in 1986 RD 306; 1974 RD 234 (B.R./F.B.). I wish I could say with James Baldwin, who has it, in a different connections (The Fire Next Time, London 1963 p. 17), It is the innocence which constitute the crime, the innocence of an inadequate perception of issues and concerns relating to clerical scope of section 28 of Land Revenue Act. 34. All in all, and in the perspective foregone, the application is dismissed. (Application dismissed)