JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 4 to 12, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti for respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated in the year 1999 at the instance of father of respondent nos. 4 to 7 as well as respondent nos. 11 and 12 for correction of map which was initially registered as case No. 31 of 1999 and finally registered as case No. 588 of 2003 in respect to plot Nos. 100, 154, 156 and 157 situated in Village Shankarpura Tappa- Haveli, Pargana- Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil- Bhatparani District- Deoria impleading the petitioners' grandfather in the aforementioned proceeding. In the aforementioned proceeding, a report has been submitted by Revenue Inspector on 18.8.1999 in which area of plot No. 157 shown to be in excess by 0.10 dismil and area of plot Nos. 152, 153, 154 and 155 shown to be in excess by 6.1/2 dismil. Another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspector which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 18.1.2003 which is contrary to the earlier report dated 18.8.1999. Petitioners' father filed his objection dated 18.6.2003 to the report dated 9.1.2003 on the ground that plot No. 100 is abadi and the residential houses of the Villagers are situated over abadi plot No. 100, therefore, proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector Bhatparani, Deoria appeared in the proceeding and recorded his statement in respect to the report submitted by him on 9.1.2003. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector stated in his statement that plot No. 156 is wrongly mentioned as plot No. 165 in the report as well as each and every plot has been measured by him separately but in the cross-examination, he admitted that he measure only plot Nos. 154, 155 and 157 but plot No. 100 has not been measured by him. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector, Administration, Deoria has allowed the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents vide order dated 3.11.2004. 154, 155 and 157 but plot No. 100 has not been measured by him. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector, Administration, Deoria has allowed the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents vide order dated 3.11.2004. Against the order dated 3.11.2004, petitioners' father filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was registered as Revision No. 66/66 of 2004-2005, Computerized case No. C20040500001105 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Additional Commissioner vide order dated 16.12.2004 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 3.11.2004 and interim order was remained in operation till the disposal of the revision. Revisional Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.12.2022 and 3.11.2004 passed by Additional Commissioner Administration Gorakhpur and Additional Collector Administration Deoria respectively. It is also material that writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 filed by Sukhdev (father of respondent no.7) in respect to allotment of chak proceeding is pending before this Court and interim order is operating for maintaining status quo by both the parties to the proceeding. 3. Respondent nos. 4 to 12 have filed their counter-affidavit and petitioners have filed their rejoinder-affidavit in the matter. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that plot No. 100 is the abadi land therefore proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable in respect to plot No. 100. He further submitted that abadi plot No. 100 is carved out from old plot No. 408 area 1.90 acre. He further submitted that plot Nos. 154, 155, 156 and 157 belongs to petitioners and if the relief prayed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is granted, the plot No. 156 will be affected which is beyond the scope of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as title cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector dated 9.1.2003 is contrary to the earlier report dated 18.8.1999, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector. He further submitted that subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector dated 9.1.2003 is contrary to the earlier report dated 18.8.1999, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the subsequent report of the Revenue Inspector. He further submitted that objection filed at the instance of the petitioners to the subsequent report of Revenue Inspector has not been taken into consideration and the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents has been allowed. He further submitted that subsequent reports submitted by Revenue Inspector dated 9.1.2003 is not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that chak allotment proceeding during consolidation operation in respect to plot Nos. 154 and 157 has been decided and writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 is pending before this Court in which interim order is operating. He further submitted that confirmed map prepared during consolidation operation in respect to the area of the entire Village including excess area, if any can be corrected by consolidation authorities and not by way of proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that impugned order be set aside and the application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by contesting respondents is liable to be rejected. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (11) ADJ 321 Sunil Singh and Others v. Kashi Singh and Others in order to demonstrate that if the reports submitted in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is not in accordance with law then the objection filed against the report should be properly considered while deciding the application under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 12 submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as such, writ petition filed by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Act was rightly initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents and the first report submitted by the Revenue Inspector was not according to law accordingly another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspector which is in accordance with law. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Revenue Act was rightly initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents and the first report submitted by the Revenue Inspector was not according to law accordingly another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspector which is in accordance with law. He further submitted that report dated 9.1.2003 was accompanied by proposed amendment chart of the plot in question as well as proposed map which only demonstrate that the jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been exercised in accordance with the provisions of the act/ rules. He further submitted that Revenue Inspector was examined in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act who proved his report dated 9.1.2003. He further submitted that pendency of the Writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 as well as grant of interim order in that writ petition will not come in the way of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that plot No. 100 is admittedly abadi over which the entire Village Shankarpura is situated. He further submitted that no question of title has been adjudicated by way of proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that if there is any mistake in the map prepared by the authority then the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act will be treated as rightful exercise of jurisdiction under Article 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He further submitted that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that how the prejudice has been caused to petitioners by allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He finally submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (137) RD 23 Phool Singh and 7 Others v. Upper Commissioner (Law) and 6 Others in order to demonstrate that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of reports submitted in the proceeding cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents which was allowed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 3.11.2004. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners against the order dated 3.11.2004 has been dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2022. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as well as Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant for perusal which are as under:- "Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 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." "Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book.- (1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, all changes in the boundaries of the village or survey numbers, and shall also cause to be corrected, any errors or omissions which are, from time to time, detected in such map or field book (khasra). (2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly." 9. (2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly." 9. The perusal of the aforementioned provision of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901/ Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 demonstrate that Collector in accordance with the rule made under the Act/ Code shall maintain a map and a field book (khasra) for each Village and shall cause to be recorded annually or at such longer intervals all changes in the boundaries or survey numbers as well as Collector shall correct any errors detected in map or field book (khasra). 10. In the instant matter, the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents in the year 1999. The subsequent reports dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 submitted by the Revenue Inspector and forwarded by Tehsildar in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act reveals that proper procedure has been followed by the Revenue Inspector. C.H. Form Nos. 41 and 45, confirmed chak map as well as settlement map were taken into consideration by the Revenue Inspector before submitting his report dated 9.1.2003 along with schedule dated 9.1.2003. C.H. Form Nos. 41 and 45, confirmed chak map as well as settlement map were taken into consideration by the Revenue Inspector before submitting his report dated 9.1.2003 along with schedule dated 9.1.2003. The perusal of the report dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 along with schedule will be necessary which is as under:- ^^U;k;ky; eq[; jktLo vf/kdkjh nsofj;k okn la0 31@447] /kkjk&28 LR Act ekS0 ladjiqjk ij l0e0 rg& HkkVikjjkuh nsofj;k jke ujs'k vs lq[knso vkfn egksn;] layxz okn vUrxZr /kkjk 28 ,y-vkj-,DV Jh jkeujs'k cuke lq[knso lEcfU/kr xzke 'kadjiqjk rIik gosyh ijxuk l-e- rglhy HkkVikj jkuh tuin nsofj;k ij ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa okn i= dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh dh eq[; vkifRr gS fd laUnfHkZr xkVk la0 100] 154] 155] 156 o 157 dk cUnkscLrh Hkwfp= vfHkfyf[kr jdcs ds vuq:i u gksdj ekSds dh fLFkfr ds foijhr cu x;k gS rFkk xkVk la[;k 154] 155] 167 ds cUnkscLrh Hkwfp= vfHkfy[kr jdcs ds vuq:i u gksdj cMs vkdkj ds cu x;s gS] dks la'kks/ku dj pdekxZ la[;k 156 dks vkSj iwjc dj c<+s gq, uD'ks dk {ks=Qyh ds eqrkfcd dkVdj vk-ua- 100 iqjkuh vkcknh esa lfEefyr dj fn;k tk;A oknh us vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 41 o 45 dh udy izfr] iqf"Vd`r pdeSi o cUnkscLrh Hkwfe= dh udy izfr layxz okn i= esa layxz fd;k gSA lUnfHkZr gky vk- u-a 100@1-90 fM- lkfod uEcj 408@1-90 fM- ls feydj vk-ua- 154@0-421 fM- lkfod uEcj 376 fe0@0-05] 377 fe0@0-06] 378 fe0@0-06] 380 fe@0-01] 381 fe0@0-23] 382@2fe@00-006 fM ls feydj vk ua- 155@0-05 lk-ua- 376 fe@0-02] 377 fe@0-03 fM ls feydj o vk-ua- 376 fe@0-05] 365 fe@0-02] 363 fe@0-03] 362 fe@0-004] 361 fe@0-01] 350 fe@0-02] 348 fe@0-02] 348 fe@0-02] 347 fe@0-01] 344 fe@0-02] 329 fe@0-02] 381 fe@0-02 fM ls feydj o vk-ua- 157 fe@1-05 lk-ua- 359 fe@0-01] 360 fe@0-14] 363 fe@0-35] 362 fe@0-04] 365 fe@0-05] 366 fe@0-27] 367 fe@0-12] 367 fe@0-12] 368@0-04] 369@0-04] 369@0-03 fM ls feydj vk ua- 94@0-03 fM lk0 ua 364@0-03 fM lk- ua- 364@0-03 fM ls feydj o vk-ua- 160@188 fM@0-01 lk-ua- 367@2fM@0-01 ls feydj o vk-ua- 376 fe0@0-04] 377 fe@0-02 fM ls feydj o vk ua0 153@0-10 lk ua- 377 fe@0-02] 378 fe@0-01] 379 fe@0-01] 380 fe@0-02 rFkk 381 fe@0-04 fM feydj o vk-ua- 153@0-10 lk- ua- 377 fe@0-02] 379 fe@0-01] 380 fe@0-02 rFkk 381 fe@0-04 fM ls feydj o vk- ua- 144@0-42 fM lk- ua- 279 fe@0-012] 280 fe@0-007] 283 fe@0-07] 283 fe@0-18 fM ls feydj o vk-ua- 145@0-05 fM lk- ua- 279 fe@0-01] 281 fe@0-01] 282 fe@0-01] 377 fe@0-01] 378 fe@0-01] 376 fe@0-01] 376 fe@0-01] fM ls fey dj o vk ua- 146@0-412] fM-lk- ua- 282@1@0-412 fM lk ua- 282@1@0-031] 283@1@0-07] 368 fe@0-01] 375 fe0@0-04] 376 fe@0-04] 377 fe@0-06] 378 fe@0-14 379 fe@0-02 fM ls feydj rFkk vk ua- 93@0-07 fM lk uEcj 349@0-07 fM ls feydj cuk gS ok feyku iqf"Vd`r pdeSi ls fd;k x;k tks =qfViw.kZ ik;k x;kA jktLo fujh{kd egksn; HkkV;kj jkuh ds vk[;k fnukad 18-08-99 rFkk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 10-12-99 ds vuqikyu esa ekSds dh tkap ds i'pkr vk-ua- 156@0-026] 94@0-03] 160@188@0-01 fM ds cUnkscLrh Hkwfp= dk eki xqfu;k ,oa ijdkj ls x.kuk }kjk fudkyk x;k tks vfHkfyf[kr jdcs ds cjkcj o vk-ua- 154@0-412] 155@0-05] 157@1-05] 144@0-47 fM ds cUnkscLrh Hkwfp= dk eki x.kuk }kjk xqfu;k ,oa ojdkjs ls fudkyk x;k tks vfHkfyf[kr jdcs ls dze'k% 0-03 fM] 0-02fM] 0-06fM] 0-05fM cMs vkdkj dk rFkk vk-ua- 100@1-90] 146@0-412 fM ds Hkh cUnkscLrh Hkwfp= dk eki xqfu;k ,oa ijdkj ls x.kuk }kjk fudkyk x;k tks vfHkfyf[kr jdcs ls dze'k% 0-09 fM] 0-01@2 fM NksVs vkd`fr dk cuk gSa bl izdkj iqf"Vd`r pdeSi dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, jdck djkjh ds vk/kkj ij la'kksf/kr rkfydk ds vuqlkj fuEu la'kks/ku izLrko rS;kj fd;k x;kA v-ua- 154 ds mRrjh if'peh dks.k ls 20 dMh iwjc c<+kdj ,d fcUnw dk;e dj bls vk-ua- 158 ds mRrjh if'pe dks.k ls feyk fn;k x;k tks pdekxZ ua0 156 dk iwohZ rFkk 154] 155] 157 dk if'peh esMk gksxkA vk-ua- 135 ds nf{k.kh if'peh dks.k dks vk-ua- 93 ds mRrjh iwohZ dks.k ls feyk fn;k x;k tks pdekxZ ua0 156 dk nf{k.kh rFkk vk-ua- 134] 132] 100] 94 o 93 dk iwohZ esMk gksxkA v-ua- 94 ds iwohZ esM ds iwjc lh/kk c<+kdj pdekxZ ds if'peh esM ls feyk fn;k tks 94 dk iwohZ la'kksf/kr esMk gksxk rFkk vk-ua- 94 dk iqjkuk iwohZ esMk la'kksf/kr if'peh esMk gksxk vk-ua- 94 o 165 dk 'ks"k Hkkx vk-ua- 100 dk Hkkx gksxkA vk-ua- 146 ds mRrjh iwohZ dks.k dks 20 dMh mRrj c<+kdj ,d fcUnw dk;e dj bls vk-ua- 144 ds nf{k.kh if'peh dksM ls feyk fn;k x;kA bl izdkj dk la'kks/ku izLrko dks vuqjsf[kr uD'ks ij vkPNkfjr djds yky ekls ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS tks bl vk[;k dk eq[; Hkkx gSA vLrq vk[;k voyksdukFkZ lsok esa izsf"kr gSA jk0fu0 HkkVikj jkuh 09-01-03 vxzlfjr rg0 HkkVikj jkuh 18-01-03 EX Ka-1 12-10-04 la'kks/ku rkfydk jkeujs'k cuke lq[knso nQk&28 ,y0vkj0,DV xzke 'kadjiqjk rIik gosyh ijxuk l-e- rglhy&HkkVkjjkuh] tuin&nsofjk ckor~ vk-ua-&156] 100] 154] 155] 157 cUnkscLrh uEcj cUnkscLrh jdck fM0 esa Hkwfp= dh eki ds vuqlkj jdck fM0 esa jdcs dh deh fM0 esa jdcs dh c<ksRrjh fM0 esa fo'ks"k fooj.k 1 2 3 4 5 6 156 0-26 0-26 & & 94 0-03 0-03 & & 160@188 0-01 0-01 & & 154 0-41&1@2 0-41&1@2 & 0-03 155 0-05 0-07 & 0-02 157 1-05 1-11 & 0-06 144 0-42 0-47 & 0-05 100 1-90 1-81 0-09 & 146 0-41&1@2 0-40 0-01&1@2 9 4-55 4-60&1@2 0-10&1@2 0-16 jk0fu0 HkkVikj jkuh 09-01-03 EX Ka 2 12.10.04" 11. It is also material that Revenue Inspector who submitted his report dated 9.1.2003 was examined/ cross-examined in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which will be relevant for the perusal, the same is as under:- ^^jke ujs'k cuke lq[knso c;ku Jh gjh'k pUnz pkScs jktLo fujh{kd HkkVikj jkuh us cgyQ c;ku fd;k fd eSa yxHkx <+kbZ rhu lky ls bl in ij dk;Zjr gSA izfrosnu fnukad 09-01-2003 rFkk mlds lkFk layxz la'kks/ku rkfydk fnukad 09-01-2003 tks gekjs ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gS tks dze'k% (Ex d 1) o (Ex d 2) gSA tks fookfnr xkVs gS mldh iSekbZ'k eSus vyx&vyx fd;k rFkk blds lwfpvksa dks Hkh eSaus vyx&vyx ukikA ukius es tks nwjh xkVksa dh vk;h mls eSaus la'kks/ku rkfydk esa nf'kZr fd;k gSA la'kks/ku rkfydk es xkVk la[;k 156 vafdr gS tcfd fyfidh; =qfV ls izfrosnu es 165 fy[k x;k gS tks okLro esa 156 gSA la'kks/ku rkfydk ls xkVk la[;k 154] 155] 157 rFkk 144 ftruk iMk gSA mls eSaus nf'kZr dj fn;k gSA izLrkfor la'kks/ku esa eSaus la'kks/ku es yky L;kgh ls nf'kZr fd;k gSA c;ku lqudj rLnhd fd;kA 12-10-04 jktLo fujh{kd HkkVikj jkuh ftjg feutkfuc gfjpUn pkScs jktLo fujh{kd HkkVikj jkuh vkjkth la[;k 100 dh iSekb'k ugha fd;s gS cfYd izfroknh ds vkjkft;kr la[;k 154] 155] 157 dks dsoy ukik gSA pwafd budk {ks=Qy vf/kd feyk blfy, buds c<+s gq, jdcs ls vkcknh dh iwfrZ dh x;h gSA blh rjg ls iqf"Vd`r esa fookfnr xkVksa ds tks iqjkus uEcjksa dh vkd`fr gS mlds {ks=Qy dks ugh fudkyk gS cfYd mls iwohZ fgLls dks ukik gSA pwWafd vkjkth la[;k 100 vkcknh dks eSaus ugha ukik gS blfy, bldk {ks=Qy es ugh crk ldrk fd bldk jdck fdruk gSA [krkSuh ds vuq:i gS vyx ughA vkjkth la[;k 130 ds nf{k.kh if'peh dksus ls tks vkjkph la[;k 100 dk ?kqeko gS mldh nwjh 2 tjhc 10 dMh gSA bl doZ ls vkjkth la[;k 90 ds mRrjh if'peh dksus dks chp dh nwjh 210 dMh gS] igys dgk] ckn esa 230 gS dgk x;kA izfroknh ds vkjkth la[;k 154 dk mRrjh Hkqtk 220 dMh] iqu% dgk x;k fd 210 gS] if'peh 130 dMh ml fgUnw ls iwjch ;kfu vkjkth la[;k 155 dh mRrjh Hkqtk dh nwjh 602 dMh ,oa 155 ds iwohZ esMs dh nwjh 80 dMh ,oa 154 ds nf{k.kh esMs dh nwjh 140 dMh ,oa 154 ds iwohZ Hkqtk 230 dMh gSa ;fn esjs }kjk tks nwjh uki dj vafdr fd;k x;k gS mlls la'kks/ku izkLrd esa 10 dMh dk vUrj ik;k tkrk gSA rks ;g iSekbZ'k xyr gSA ftjg lekIrA jk0fu0 12-10-04 HkkVikj jkuh** 12. Additional District Magistrate (Administration, Deoria/ respondent no.2) after considering the report dated 9.1.2003 allowed the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents holding that area of plot Nos. 154, 155, 157 and 144 are in excess by 3 dismil, 2 dismil, 6 dismil and 5 dismil and area of plot No. 100 and 146 is smaller by 9 dismil and 1.5 dismil accordingly reports dated 9.1.2003/ 18.1.2003 is to be accepted and objection filed against the report is liable to be rejected. The finding of fact recorded by Additional District Magistrate, Administration Deoria while allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been maintained in revision by Additional Commissioner Administration IIIrd Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur. 13. The jurisdiction exercised by Additional District Magistrate Administration/ respondent no.2 while allowing the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is in accordance with law as the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector in the aforementioned proceeding was proved by the Revenue Inspector by appearing before Additional District Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which cannot be assailed by the petitioners on the ground that plot No. 100 was not measured by the Revenue Inspector or dispute of title has been decided by the Additional District Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as there is no adjudication of title dispute in the matter while passing the impugned orders. 14. This Court in the case reported in 2014 (124) RD 180 Udaibir Singh and another v. Additional Commissioner and Others has held that Section 28 of the Act has cast upon a duty to correct the error in the map and an incorrect map cannot be maintained by the Collector forever for any reason whatsoever. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Udaibir Singh and another (Supra) are relevant for perusal which are as under:- "8. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Udaibir Singh and another (Supra) are relevant for perusal which are as under:- "8. Section 28 of U.P. 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." 15. The case law cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the instant matter as the Revenue Inspector who submitted his report dated 9.1.2003 has properly proved the same by appearing before the Court in accordance with law. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.