JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Lavania, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Brijendra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for caveators/respondents no. 4 and 5. Notice on behalf of respondent no.3/Village Panchayat Naugawan Teer has been accepted by Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at admission stage. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2023, passed by opposite party no.1 Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No.2132/2015, Computerized Case No. C-20150400002132, Vijay Bahadur and others V/s Khajan Singh and others, under section 219 of U.P. L.R. Act and the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by opp. party no.2 i.e. Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur in Case No.448/1997-98, namely Ram Milan V/s Shiv Bahadur and others, under section 28 of U.P. L.R. Act, relating to Village-Naugawan Teer, Pargana-Meeranpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Sultanpur, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition. (ii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners and also maintain status-quo, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice." 4. Facts of the case are to the effect that an application for correction of map registered as Case No. 448/1997-98 (Ram Milan V/s Shiv Bahadur and others) was preferred under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") by one Ram Milan, predecessor in interest of the respondents no. 4 and 5 namely Khajan Singh and Dinesh Singh, respectively. 5. For disposal of aforesaid application, the concerned authority called for a report from revenue official. A report dated 23.10.2004 (Annexure No. 5 to the petition) was filed by the revenue official/tracer regarding Gata No(s). 958, 1230, 1229 and 957. 6. In the report dated 23.10.2004, the revenue official/tracer indicated the area of gatas. This report dated 23.10.2004 indicates the area of Gata No(s). 958, 1230, 1229 and 957 as 0.2825 hectare, 0.6085 hectare, 0.9300 hectare and 0.8938 hectare, respectively. 7. It is relevant to clarify here that Gata No. 958 belongs to respondents no. 958, 1230, 1229 and 957. 6. In the report dated 23.10.2004, the revenue official/tracer indicated the area of gatas. This report dated 23.10.2004 indicates the area of Gata No(s). 958, 1230, 1229 and 957 as 0.2825 hectare, 0.6085 hectare, 0.9300 hectare and 0.8938 hectare, respectively. 7. It is relevant to clarify here that Gata No. 958 belongs to respondents no. 4 and 5, and Gata No. 957 belongs to the petitioners herein. 8. The report dated 23.10.2004 was rejected and thereafter the tracer again submitted a report dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure No. 9 to the petition). In this report also, the area of Gata No. 958 has been indicated as 0.2825 hectare and area of Gata No. 957 has been indicated as 0.8938 hectare. 9. In respect to the report dated 15.05.2015, an objection dated 26.06.2015 (Annexure No. 10 to the petition) was filed by the petitioners. 10. Vide impugned order dated 28.09.2015, the respondent no.2/Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur confirmed the report dated 15.05.2015. 11. Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 28.092015, the petitioners preferred the Revision No. 2132/2015, Computerized Case No. C-20150400002132 (Vijay Bahadur and others Vs Khajan Singh and others) under Section 219 of Act of 1901. The revisional authority i.e. respondent no. 1/Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 13.12.2023. 12. Assailing the orders, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the settled view, in case there is a mismatch between khatauni and khasra, khatauni shall prevail and in case there is mismatch between the khasra and the village map, khasra shall prevail. 13. It is also submitted that in the instant case, the area of Gata no. 957, which belongs to the petitioners, is indicated as 0.9940 hectare in the khatauni and area of Gata No. 958, which belongs to the respondents no. 4 and 5, is indicated in the khatauni as 0.2830 hectares and this fact is evident from the khatauni of both the gatas annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition and in both the report(s) dated 23.10.2004 and 15.05.2015, the incorrect area has been indicated regarding both the Gata No(s). 958 and 957. 14. He also stated that in both the report(s) dated 23.10.2004 and 15.05.2015, the area indicated of Gata No(s). 958 and 957. 14. He also stated that in both the report(s) dated 23.10.2004 and 15.05.2015, the area indicated of Gata No(s). 958 and 957 is 0.2825 hectares and 0.8938 hectares, respectively, and based upon the incorrect measurement/area of these gatas, the tracer prepared the report. 15. He has also stated that the area indicated in the report dated 15.05.2015 confirmed vide the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 affirmed vide order impugned dated 13.12.2023 would affect the right of both the parties in future and as such interference of this Court is required. 16. Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Brijendra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for caveator/respondents no. 4 and 5 have also stated that area in both the reports regarding gatas in issue i.e. Gata No(s). 958 and 957 have not been correctly indicated. 17. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. It is apparent from the copy of the khatauni of both the gatas on record that therein the area of Gata no. 957 is indicated as 0.9940 hectares and area of Gata no. 958 is indicated as 0.2830 hectare and it is also apparent that the tracer has not taken note of the area as indicated in the khatauni while preparing the report(s). 19. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the report(s), above noted, have been prepared without application of mind and area of gatas in issue i.e. Gata No(s). 958 and 957 mentioned in these reports particularly the report dated 15.05.2015, in issue, confirmed vide orders dated 28.09.2015 and 13.12.2023, respectively, would affect the right of the parties in future and as such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order(s) dated 13.12.2023 and 28.09.2015, certified copies of which are Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition, respectively. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2/Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur with the direction to obtain fresh report from the concerned revenue official/tracer and decide the matter afresh after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2/Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur with the direction to obtain fresh report from the concerned revenue official/tracer and decide the matter afresh after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. To conclude the proceedings within the time specified above, the respondent no. 2 shall avoid adjournments. It is for the reason that the way back in the year 1998, application for correction of map was filed.