Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1486 (ALL)

SUKHBEER SINGH v. COMMISSIONER, MEERUT

2014-05-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sinha for the petitioner. 3. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Collector dated 31.5.2008, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Additional Commissioner dated 1.10.2009, dismissing the revision of the petitioner. 4. It is stated that in the reference under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 9.9.1980, shifting the chak road from plots 556, 557 and 566 to plots 563, 564 and 566. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been duly incorporated in consolidation record on 1.10.1980, but in the final consolidation map, the correction was not made according to the order dated 9.9.1980. The petitioner therefore filed an application before Consolidation Officer for giving effect to the order dated 9.9.1980, which has been dismissed by Consolidation Officer by the order dated 21.1.2006 on the ground that under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, the map cannot be corrected as the village has been notified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by the order dated 31.12.2007, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, holding that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.9.1980 has already been given effect to in CH Form 41 and CH Form 45. Since the matter is very old and the village has been notified under Section 52 of the Act, therefore, the correction in the map could only be done in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 14/2007-08) under Section 28 of the Act for correction of the map before the Collector. The application was heard by the Additional Collector, who by the order dated 31.5.2008, held that as 27 years have elapsed, as such, the map cannot be corrected, after 27 years of passing of the order dated 9.9.1980. The petitioner filed a revision (registered Revision No. 4 of 2008-09) which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 10.11.2009. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. The petitioner filed a revision (registered Revision No. 4 of 2008-09) which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 10.11.2009. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Section 28 of the Act provides as follows : “28. 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.” 7. A bare reading of the section, it is clear that any change required in the map can be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 28 of the Act, for which no limitation for filing the application has been prescribed. Thus, the application cannot be dismissed only on the ground of delay. 8. Section 27(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that all entries made in the record of right prepared during consolidation, shall be presumed to be true, until contrary is proved. Thus, the record prepared during consolidation operation can be proved to be incorrect and if it is found that the map is incorrect, then the Collector is competent to correct the map, exercising his power under Section 28 of the Act as held by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ghaffoor v. Additional Commissioner and others, 1978 AWC 836, Janhitkarini Samiti Kamla Nagar v. Board of Revenue U.P., 1999 (90) RD 366 and Full Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Suraj Prasad v. Bhagwan Din, 1998 (89) RD 36 (FB). 9. In this case, the petitioner took the case that by the order dated 9.9.1980, passed in reference proceeding, the location of the chak road was shifted. Although, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was duly incorporated in other consolidation record, but the map has not been corrected according to it. 9. In this case, the petitioner took the case that by the order dated 9.9.1980, passed in reference proceeding, the location of the chak road was shifted. Although, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was duly incorporated in other consolidation record, but the map has not been corrected according to it. Thus, the map which was prepared during consolidation operation, was not according to the final order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and final consolidation records In case the map is not according to the final order, then it could be corrected, either under Section 42-A read with Section 52(2) and Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, or under Section 28 of the Act. The mistake cannot be permitted to continue in the revenue record. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Additional Collector dated 31.5.2008 and order of Additional Commissioner dated 10.11.2009, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector to decide the application of the petitioner on merit, in accordance with law. Since the matter is very old, the Additional Collector shall pass fresh order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.