Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 457 (UTT)

Beghvati v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal

2015-09-16

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Present writ petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by Collector, Haridwar and judgment and order dated 18.10.2004 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal whereby application moved by respondents no. 3 to 6 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to correct the revenue map (Shazra) was allowed and revision arising therefrom was dismissed. 2. Undisputedly, during the consolidation operation in the village Dhareki Dara, Majahidpur, Pargana Mangalore, District Haridwar, respondents no. 3 to 6 were allotted chak / khasra No. 690 measuring 8 Bighas while petitioner, herein, was allotted chak / khasra No. 668 of 4 Bigha 1 Biswa 8 Biswansi while Khasra No. 669 was reserved for chak road; after consolidation operation was over, it was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 09.09.1995; thereafter, on 17.12.1999, respondents no. 3 to 6 have moved one application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before Collector, Haridwar saying although Khasra No. 690 measuring 8 Bigha was allotted to them and they are in possession of 8 Bighas land allotted to them, however, in revenue map (Shazra), their area has been shown less viz. 7 Bigha 8 Biswa 10 Biswansi and likewise, although petitioner, herein, was allotted Khasra No. 668 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa 8 Biswansi, however, in revenue map (Shazra) her area has been shown as 4 Bigha 14 Biswa 4 Biswansi, therefore, revenue map (Shazra) should be corrected, as per possession of the parties on the spot; after spot inspection, learned Collector, was pleased to issue direction for correction of revenue map (Shazra) as per chaks / Khasra allotted to respondents no. 3 to 6; revision filed by petitioner was dismissed; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents no. 3 to 6 and have carefully perused the record. 4. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that had there been any mistake in the revenue map (Shazra), respondents no. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents no. 3 to 6 and have carefully perused the record. 4. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that had there been any mistake in the revenue map (Shazra), respondents no. 3 to 6 could have moved objection under Section 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer and after de notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act is barred by Section 11A read with Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 5. Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, read as under: “Section 27 - (1) As soon as may be, after the final Consolidation Scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village, a new map, field-book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the khasra chakbandi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), shall subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. [(2) All entries in the records of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. (3) After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, filed-book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) and the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply. “Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act - 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.” 6. A bare perusal of the Section 27 would reveal that after consolidation operation is over, field book (Khasra) and Shazra (village map) as prepared by the Deputy Director Consolidation shall be maintained by the Collector. 7. A bare perusal of Section 28 of the Act would further reveal that Collector shall 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. 8. Meaning thereby Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act casts a duty upon the Collector to correct the errors either in the field book (Khasra) and in revenue map (Shazra). Section 28 of the Act does not give any power to the Collector to decide the contested claim of either of the parties. In other words, ordinarily, learned Collector shall correct only those errors which are apparent on the face of the record. 9. Let me now examine - As to whether learned Collector has decided any dispute between the parties or has only directed to correct the error in the revenue map (Shazra). 10. As narrated hereinbefore, undisputedly, respondents no. 3 to 6 were allotted chak / khasra No. 690 measuring 8 Bighas while petitioner, herein, was allotted chak / Khasra No. 668 of 4 Bigha 1 Biswa 8 Biswansi, therefore, revenue map (Shazra) should be prepared in accordance with the area allotted to the parties and this is what learned Collector has precisely done in the matter. 11. The full bench of Board of Revenue (Allahabad) in the case of Suraj Narain Vs. 11. The full bench of Board of Revenue (Allahabad) in the case of Suraj Narain Vs. Bhawani Prasad reported in 1977 RD page 234 has held that Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, itself empowers the Collector to correct, under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, any error found subsequently in the map and the field book prepared during consolidation operations. 12. In my humble opinion, since learned Collector does not adjudicate any complicated question of title, possession and rights of the parties and merely corrects the errors in the field book (Khasra) and map (Shazra), which are apparent on the face of the record, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, therefore, application to carry out correction in the Shazra, as per the entries made in Khasra and Khatauni cannot be said to be barred by Section 11A or Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Moreover, Section 49 bars only those subsequent proceedings wherein, rights and title either have already been adjudicated by consolidation authorities or ought to have been raised but not raised before consolidation authorities, are sought to be re-agitated after de-notification of the consolidation proceedings under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 13. Since in the present case, apparent error in the revenue map (Shazra) was directed to be corrected by the Collector, Haridwar, therefore, application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be said to be barred by Section 11A read with Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 14. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.