Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1565 (ALL)

Udai Bir Singh v. Addl. Commissioner

2014-05-13

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.: - Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Collector dated 31.1.2014 rejecting the application for correction of the map under Section 28 of UP Land Revenue Act 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 26.3.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 4. The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot No. 444 of Village Shahwazpur Dor Tehsil Hasanpur district Amroha. The petitioners filed an application for correction of the map of plot No. 444. On this application the Additional Collector called for a report from Tehsildar. The Tehsildar after survey submitted his report dated 7.11.2013. He has surveyed and measured plots Nos. 407, 424 and 426 and its area was increasing 0.390 hectare on the spot while the area of plot No. 444 found less on the spot. Accordingly, he submitted a report in correcting the map as prepared by him according to the survey. The matter was heard by Additional Collector who by order dated 31.1.2014 found that there is no demarcation line between the plot No. 407 and 426 as such it does not appear that area of plot No. 407 is up to what extent in plot No. 426. The plot No. 426 has already been allotted to 109 tenure holders and according to the allotment they were given possession over the allotted area. However in the report the Tehsildar has not shown the map of the land allotted to the tenure holders as such correction under Section 28 of the Act was not possible. On this finding the application of the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act has been dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 28.3.2014 affirmed the finding of the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that plot No. 407 is in one side in the map and its area can very well demarcated by measuring its area as referred in the settlement record and there is neither any difficulty nor any ambiguity in demarcation of the area of plot No. 407. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that plot No. 407 is in one side in the map and its area can very well demarcated by measuring its area as referred in the settlement record and there is neither any difficulty nor any ambiguity in demarcation of the area of plot No. 407. So far as the plot No. 426, is concerned. It was found that its area is in excess of 0.390 hectare and therefore the area of the allottees is not going to be reduced in any way by demarcation of the plot No. 444 and correction of its map. On this very ground correction of the map cannot be refused. He further submits that in case no map of the land, allotted to the tenure holders, is prepared then it is not possible for the petitioners to say anything in this respect. It is duty of the revenue authorities to demarcate the land to the allottees on the spot. In any case if the hearing of the allottes was required then notices ought to have been issued to them and they could have been heard. But only on this ground the application for correction of map could not have been rejected. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of U.P. in which it has been stated that the corrected map prepared by Revenue Inspector is self contradictory as it has not shown the boundary of plot No. 407 and 426 in it. Plot No. 426 is a very big plot and plot No. 424 is lying inside the plot No. 426. As plot No. 426 has been allotted to 109 persons, as such the correction of the map is not possible without hearing 109 persons. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 8. Section 28 of UP Land Revenue Act 1901 is quoted below: Maintenance of map and field-book.-- The Collector shall in accordance with the 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. By using the word 'shall correct any errors' a duty has been caste upon the Collector to correct the error kept in the map. A perusal of the report of Tehsildar shows that there is error in the map. In case the demarcation of plot No. 407 is not made in the map then it is also an error and Collector is duty bound to correct the demarcation of plot No. 407 also. He can not shirk his responsibility by saying that as the land has been allotted to 109 persons and there is no demarcation of plot No. 407 as such correction in the map is not possible. An incorrect map cannot be maintained by the Collector forever. 9. In such circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Additional Collector dated 31.1.2014 as well as the Additional Commissioner dated 26.3.2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. If necessary the notices may be served to the allottees also. The fresh exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.