JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent as well as Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the private respondent no.5 as also Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dated 14.05.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is the Collector who is obligated to maintain the map, field book for each village and also maintain said record. It is submitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar indicating that the map relating plot no.332 situated in village Patna, Mubarakpur, Pargana Birhar, Tehsil Alapur District Ambedkar Nagar needs to be corrected. It is urged that on the said application a report from the Naib Tehsildar dated 03.01.2019 and another report by the Tehsildar Alapur dated 19.01.2019 was called for. The said reports clearly indicated that the plot no.332 which was a 'pond' land has been shown to be less and plot nos.345, 346, 347, 348 and 348/889 is having a larger area. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner who otherwise has no interest in plot no.332 as it was a 'pond' land and that the petitioner himself was guilty of encroaching land and the Tehsildar Alapur had initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was decided against the petitioner on 01.08.2019. In another suit pending before Civil Judge, (J.D) Tanda bearing no.355 of 2017 instituted by Ram Bahar against the petitioner wherein an interim order has been passed directing the defendants not to interfere in the land of the plaintiff of the suit namely Ram Bahar which related to plot no.345 and because of the interim order the map correction could not be done. Moreover, the petitioner did not has any locus standi in so far as the plot no.332 is concerned which is a pond land and in order to avoid any action against himself he has instituted the petition and in view thereof, the application of the petitioner was dismissed on 28.10.2022. 4. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner who also echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the duty of the Collector to maintain the map and the field book and in case, it was brought to the notice of the Collector regarding any discrepancy in the map or the field book, it ought to have been taken note of by the Collector and the proceedings could not have been dismissed merely because the petitioner at one point of time was guilty of encroaching upon the land. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the Collector as well as the revisional court is bad in eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Surji Devi vs Additional Commissioner and ors 2012 (116) RD 450 and Shaktinath Mani and ors vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and ors; 2023 (161) R.D 384 to buttress the submission that irrespective of who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court, which is the duty of the Collector to maintain the record and the application as well as the revision should not have been dismissed. 6. Learned Standing counsel and learned counsel for the respondent no.5 have joined hand to submit that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the instant petition as he has no interest in plot no.332 which is a 'pond' land. It is also urged that the instant petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation which may permit the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. 7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner and an order had been passed for the eviction and imposition of damages. It also could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had preferred an appeal which also stood dismissed. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, if the impugned orders are seen, it would reveal that both the authorities i.e. Collector as well as the Revisional Court have declined to interfere for the reason that the petitioner himself had encroached upon the land and an order for eviction had been passed against him. It would be relevant to notice that Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 actually creates an obligation on the Collector who is required to maintain the map and the field book in relation to each village. The provision of Section 30 is part of Chapter V of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which relates to maintenance of village records. Similar obligation is laid on the Collector even to maintain the record of rights and there is a separate provision for correction of records in Section 32 of the Code, 2006. It is true that in so far as the pond land is concerned, the same is vested with the Gaon Sabha and no private party can have any right in respect thereto. 10. The petitioner at best could have been informant and upon receiving the information it is for the revenue authorities to take note and if it finds that any correction or maintenance of any village records is required, they would take necessary measures in respect thereto. The correction of record in so far as the pond land is concerned i.e. for the Gaon Sabha to look into and noticing that this is not a public interest litigation where the Court can permit the petitioner to intervene, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court does not find that the instant petition can be maintained at the behest of the petitioner since in respect of the plot which is a pond land which vest with the Gaon Sabha it is not open for the petitioner to espouse the cause for another party. Since it is admitted that the petitioner does not have any locus in so far as plot no.332 is concerned which is admittedly a 'pond land' hence this Court decline to entertain the petition at the behest of the present petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner himself was guilty of encroaching upon the public utility land and it is now well settled that the petitioner before the Constitutional Court must not only show any infringement in the rights of the person approaching the Court but must also show equity in his favour. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to satisfy on both the counts and as such the petition at the behest of the petitioner cannot be maintained and it is for this aforesaid reason that the two authorities have declined to accept the contention of the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the Gaon Sabha to see that the pond land of plot no.332 is maintained and so also the records including the map and in case of any discrepancy it goes without saying that the Gaon Sabha and the Collector concerned will do the needful to keep, maintain and correct the revenue records relating to the village under their jurisdiction. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.