Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner purchased an area 0.064 are of plot No. 745 from the respondent No. 4 Alauddin. He was already 'Bhumidhar' of adjoining plot Nos. 746 and 747. An application under section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act (in short 'the Act') was moved by the petitioner on the allegations that though the area of plots Nos. 746 and 747 are 0-3-10 and 0-7-5 respectively but while preparing the settlement map the area of plot No. 747 was shown as 0-6-5 and the settlement map was not prepared in accordance with the record and some excess area was shown in plot No. 745. The application was dismissed by the Additional Collector on the ground that the area of plot No. 745 was correctly recorded and no amendment is required in the map. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision. The Revisional Court has dismissed the revision on the finding that the tenure-holder of plot Nos. 746 and 747 would be affected if any change is made in the map and they were not impleaded as party in the proceeding. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner himself is recorded as 'Bhumidhar' of plots No. 746 and 747 as such the revision has wrongly been dismissed on the ground that the tenure holder of the said plots have not been impleaded in the proceedings. It has been pointed out that the Additional Collector while dismissing the application has also recorded a finding that the petitioner is the 'Bhumidhar' and in possession of the said two plots. It has further been contended that even though the Naib Tehsildar in his report dated 20.6.2006 has clearly mentioned that the area of plot No. 747 was shown less and plot No. 745 excess and that requires correction still the Additional Collector dismissed the application on the ground that the 'Bandobast' map is in consonance with the confirmed 'Chakbandi' map. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 20.6.2006 goes to show that there is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Collector has dismissed the application without considering the case of the petitioner and looking into the report of the Naib Tehsildar. 7. In view of above, both the orders impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 8. The matter stands remitted back to the Additional Collector, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi to consider the application of the petitioner under section 28 of the Act afresh in the light of the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 20.6.2006. From a perusal of the record, the Court further finds that Alauddin who has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition was not impleaded as party in the application under section 28 of the Act filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall implead Alauddin as a party in the said application and the Assistant Collector shall proceed with the case after notice to the newly added party. 9. Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition Allowed,