Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.—Heard Sri R.K. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mohd. Arif Khan assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, Santosh Kumar Srivastava & Manish Kumar for opposite party. 2. Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 22.2.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Lucknow (as contained in Annexure nos. 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition). 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that on 23.1.2007 one Manohar Bhargava filed an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act in the court of Additional Collector for correction of the map of Gata No. 56 Area being 2.3620 hectare. He stated that he is recorded tenure holder as Bhumidhar with transferable rights of the land of said Gata and is in possession of the entire recorded area of 2.3620 hectare. Due to mistake of Naqsha Navees the map of lesser area has been prepared, which requires correction. 4. Additional Collector called for the report from Tehsildar, Bakshi ka Talab, who has submitted his report dated 4.5.2007 stating therein that the area of gata no. 56 is recorded as 2.3620 hectare but on the measurement at the spot it has been found 2.272 hectare. He also stated that the land of gata no. 56 is being used for housing and commercial purpose and is recorded as Abadi. 5. He also informed that attached to gata no. 56 is gata no. 57 and 58 on which pucca houses have been built. On the eastern side there is Lucknow-Sitapur National Highway while on western side is gata no. 55. 6. The measurement of gata no. 55 is correct. It is not practically possible to move in the directions of gata no. 57, 58, 55 and the side which is blocked by national highway. Hence, the only side which is left is the side where plot of the petitioner is situated. This is the southern side of plot no. 56. This side is in a different village and different tehsil. The village is ‘Semra Gaurhi’ and tehsil is ‘Sadar’. It has been argued that since there is deficiency in the measurement of plot no. Hence, the only side which is left is the side where plot of the petitioner is situated. This is the southern side of plot no. 56. This side is in a different village and different tehsil. The village is ‘Semra Gaurhi’ and tehsil is ‘Sadar’. It has been argued that since there is deficiency in the measurement of plot no. 56 and the only side which is left open is southern side, hence, it will be proper that the deficiency be made good by extracting the land from the plot of the petitioner, although it is in different village and different tehsil. 7. Petitioner says that the Additional Collector has passed a totally illegal order in mala fide manner. Deficiency in measurement has to be corrected by, the measurement of the same village and tehsil first and not by venturing into the land of other village and tehsil. 8. Most important fact in the case is that the application was moved under section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, which is quoted as under: “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 field-book.” 9. It is clear that only the map can be corrected in the process. Moreover, the petition himself says in para no. 2 of the application that he is occupying total 2.3620 hectare land which is recorded in the revenue record. He has not even prayed that his land is less than 2.3620 hectare. Even then the Additional Collector has proceeded to get the measurements done of petitioner’s plot which is not in the village of the applicant. He has failed to get the measurements done of the adjoining plots on which pucca houses have been built. This cannot be a ground for not measuring the adjoining plot no. 57 & 58. Only because some encroacher has made permanent illegal construction, his unauthorized possession cannot be justified and exempted. This will be most-illogical, malafide and arbitrary. 10. The argument of the petitioner appears to be absolutely correct. This cannot be a ground for not measuring the adjoining plot no. 57 & 58. Only because some encroacher has made permanent illegal construction, his unauthorized possession cannot be justified and exempted. This will be most-illogical, malafide and arbitrary. 10. The argument of the petitioner appears to be absolutely correct. So many incidental issues have been dealt with by the Additional Commissioner in his impugned order dated 30.7.2009. It is more of a cover up than any legal finding. The Additional Collector has proceeded to restore the land to the applicant from whatever plots available, without actually ascertaining as to who has encroached the land of the applicant. Instead of measuring the plots no. 57 and 58 the officer proceeded to extract the land from the adjoining village, tehsil because according to him only that was possible. If this logic is allowed to stand rule of law will break down. You cannot steal a rich to compensate the poor. Land can be restored from the encroachers and not on the basis of availability. The process for settling boundary dispute is given in Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act which is as below: “41. Settlement of boundary disputes.-(1) All 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 inquiry 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 occupation 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 best entitled to the property, and shall put such person in possession; (b) in the second case, shall put the person so dispossessed in possession; and shall then fix the boundary accordingly.” 11. Petitioner filed objection on 16.10.2007 in which he stated that the applicant Manohar Bhargava has not disclosed the source from which he has obtained ownership of the land of Gata no. 56. Petitioner filed objection on 16.10.2007 in which he stated that the applicant Manohar Bhargava has not disclosed the source from which he has obtained ownership of the land of Gata no. 56. Additional Collector on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Sadar dated 24.5.2007 passed order dated 30.7.2009 for correction-modification of the map without examining the Lekhpal concerned for verification of measurement done by them, which is mandatory. Petitioner further submits that Additional Collector has passed the order dated 30.7.2009 without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as persons/members of Greater Gulab Sahkari Awas Samiti Private Limited who have constructed their houses and residing therein and are directly affected by the order. 12. Petitioner further submits that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2009 the petitioner filed Revision under Section 219 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was registered as Revision No. 579 of 2009-10, titled as Saifuddin ver*sus Manohar Bhargava and others. With the revision of petitioner some other parties, Smt. Krishna and Sughar Singh have also filed revision before the opposite party no. 1 which was registered as Revision No. 593 of 2009-10. In the proceedings before the opposite party no. 1 they have also filed their affidavit in which they stated that by the order of the Collector there is loss to parties by which, the approach to their residence will be closed. Both the revisions filed by the petitioners as well as Smt. Krishna Devi and others were clubbed and heard and decided by the order impugned. 13. Petitioner challenges the order impugned on the grounds that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 both have failed to consider the report of Tehsildar dated 24.5.2007 whereby it has been recommended that the matter may be sent to Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talaba for fresh and proper measurement according to the map of village Bhithauli Khurd as the disputed gata no. 56 is situated in Tehsil Baxi ka Talab. The measurement report dated 24.5.2007 which has been made the basis of impugned order dated 30.7.2009 has not been prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 41 to 50 of Chapter VI of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Act. The proceedings before the opposite party no. 56 is situated in Tehsil Baxi ka Talab. The measurement report dated 24.5.2007 which has been made the basis of impugned order dated 30.7.2009 has not been prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 41 to 50 of Chapter VI of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Act. The proceedings before the opposite party no. 1 and 2 as well as revenue authorities clearly indicate that the same has been done keeping in mind the provisions of the section 41 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but the application on which basis the order impugned has been passed was under Section 28 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, the action of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 is clearly indicating that the order has been passed only to give the benefit to the private respondent no. 3 to 5. 14. Time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel on 11.5.2011 to get all the necessary instructions from the State in this regard. The case was taken up on 20.5.2011. The learned Standing Counsel stated that instructions were on the way and the case may be taken up at 2 O’ Clock as he is not ready with the case at this moment. The case was thus, adjourned and was taken up on 23.5.2011. The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions stated that since Collector is the over all in-charge of the whole district, hence, measurements can be made in two tehsils for the land which is situated in one village of one tehsil. He could not satisfactorily answer as to why adjoining gatas of applicant’s land were not measured. He says that the order of the Additional District Magistrate is justified, although no satisfactory explanation of any query of the court was forthcoming. 15. Senior Advocate, Mohd. Arif Khan, along with all his colleagues have argued that petitioner does not have any grievance. The applicant, Manohar Bhargava, had made an application for correction of the map and only the map has been corrected. He tried to demonstrate through the map that only a particular line has been straightened, as such, the petitioner can not challenge the correction of map. Petitioner has no locus to file this petition as the applicant’s land has been restored to him. He tried to demonstrate through the map that only a particular line has been straightened, as such, the petitioner can not challenge the correction of map. Petitioner has no locus to file this petition as the applicant’s land has been restored to him. He failed to satisfy the court as to how land could be restored to the opposite party on his application for correction of map. He further failed to satisfy the court as to how the measurements can be made of a plot belonging to another village and another tehsil. 16. From the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the order of Additional Collector it is clear that the order is per se malafide and arbitrary. Measurements of adjoining plots no. 57 and 58 have not been taken on the ground that pucca houses have been constructed. This is most illogical and perverse. Benefit is being given to encroachers and the deficiency in plot no. 56 is being compensated from the land available of the different village and tehsil. This is against the provisions of Land Revenue Act. Relief is being given which was not even sought for. The court feels that this malafide and arbitrary action needs to be looked into once again by the Collector of the district. 17. Accordingly, both the orders of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) dated 30.7.2009 and of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated 22.2.2011 are hereby set aside. 18. The matter is remanded back to the Collector for correction of map which will be done in accordance with law say within a maximum period of two months from the date a certified copy of this roder is placed before him. 19. It is made clear that this court has not given any finding on the rival claim of the parties in any manner. The court is not satisfied by the manner and procedure adopted in this case by the revenue authorities. The Collector will go by the rules and shall pass orders after hearing both the parties in the interest of justice and fair play. 20. Till the case is finally decided by the Collector, status quo with regard to the possession as it exists today shall be maintained. 21. This order shall also be read in W.P. No. 2421(M/S) of 2011. 22. With the above observation, writ petition is finally disposed of. _____________