Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2579 (ALL)

Ram Swaroop v. Addl. Commissioner 1st and Others

2011-11-14

A.P.SAHI

body2011
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 22.7.2011. 2. The facts are, that earlier two applications were filed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of the map after consolidation operations were over on the ground that the area recorded in the map was lesser than what is recorded in the revenue record. One of the objections was by the petitioner Ram Swaroop in relation to plot No.765 and the other objection was in relation to plot No. 763 by Jaganath Prasad. Both these applications were consolidated and the matter was disposed of on 24.3.2006. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner Ram Swaroop is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. There after Chunbad and late Chote who have been arrayed as opposite party nos.6 and 7, filed a fresh application under Section 28 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act complaining that the area in relation to plot no.769 which is recorded in their name has been wrongly reflected in the map and therefore, the reduction of almost 15 biswas of land should be completed by carrying out necessary corrections. This application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that earlier while entertaining the objection of the petitioner in relation to plot nos. 763 and 765 the reports were submitted clearly indicating that there was no reduction in area of plot no.769, and therefore the proceedings will operate as res-judicata against the contesting respondent. 4. The Collector rejected this objection on the ground that the contesting respondent Chunbad and late Chota were not parties to the previous proceedings. He further went on to hold that after receipt of the measurement statistics by the Collector, a fresh measurement was carried out again in the presence of the counsel for the parties with which the learned counsel for the petitioner Ram Swaroop was also satisfied. Accordingly the application filed by the respondents was allowed for carrying out the necessary correction. 5. A revision was filed by the petitioner contending that once the previous proceeding had culminated in the order dated 24.3.2006 therefore there was no occasion to have allowed a second measurement and even otherwise there was any erroneous assumption of fact namely that Chunbad and late Chote were not parties to the earlier proceeding. 5. A revision was filed by the petitioner contending that once the previous proceeding had culminated in the order dated 24.3.2006 therefore there was no occasion to have allowed a second measurement and even otherwise there was any erroneous assumption of fact namely that Chunbad and late Chote were not parties to the earlier proceeding. The revising authority has rejected the revision and has upheld the subsequent measurement carried out in relation to plot no. 769. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and it appears that Chundbad and Chotey were parties to the earlier proceeding to whom notices had been issued. There does not appear to be any objection having been filed and that the map must have been on account of the fact that plot. No. 769 was shown to be in accordance with the recorded area. This aspect therefore may not have impelled the respondents Chunbad and Chotey to have filed any objection. 7. After the correction appears to have been incorporated as per the order dated 24.3.2006 the respondents made a request for correcting the map in relation to plot no.769 as they were being affected. It is this application\which has been contested by the petitioner on the ground of previous order dated 24.3.2006. The respondents may have been parties to the earlier proceeding but there is no adjustment in relation to any reduction of yŸ area of plot no. 769. This reduction in the area appears to have been reflected after the earlier order dated 24.3.2006 came to be implemented. The respondents, therefore had an occasion and the locus to pray for a correction of the map in relation to plot no. 769 which was not affected in the earlier proceeding. 7. The reduction in the area therefore was again sought to be measured in relation to plot no.769 and the finding recorded by the Collector is on the satisfaction of the lawyers of both sides as contained in the order dated 8.7.2010. 8. In the opinion of the Court once the lawyers were satisfied that the measurement had been carried out in their presence then there was no occasion for the petitioner to have raised an issue before the revising authority without there being effective challenge to the recital that the satisfaction was recorded by the Collector in the order dated 8.7.2010. 8. In the opinion of the Court once the lawyers were satisfied that the measurement had been carried out in their presence then there was no occasion for the petitioner to have raised an issue before the revising authority without there being effective challenge to the recital that the satisfaction was recorded by the Collector in the order dated 8.7.2010. If the lawyers were satisfied, then there was no occasion for the petitioner to be dissatisfied without challenging the said satisfaction recorded by the Collector. In the opinion of the Court there is no merit in this writ petition. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________