JUDGMENT : 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2) Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging Order dated 21 June 2021 passed by Minister-Revenue by which the Revision filed by Respondent No.6 has been allowed and Order dated 21 August 2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division has been set aside. The learned Minister has directed that area corrections be effected in respect of CTS No. 22D as well as CTS Nos. 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D by adding area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. As per Report of the City Survey Office, Borivali dated 19 November 2018. Petitioner has prayed for implementation of Report dated 8 October 2010 of the City Survey Officer by increasing the area of his Plot bearing CTS No. 25A by 176.2 sq. mtrs. By amending the Petition, Petitioner has also challenged Order dated 28 July 2022 passed by Collector, Mumbai in pursuance of the Order of the learned Minister as well as impugned survey/measurement notice dated 28 July 2022 and Survey dated 19 September 2022. 3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner’s grandfather purchased plot bearing CTS No. 25 corresponding to Survey No. 5 Hissa No.2 at village Mandpeshwar, Tal. Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District, Dahisar (West) Mumbai. In the year 1968, CTS No. 25 was divided into three plots as Plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C by Petitioner's grandfather for the purpose of distribution amongst his son and daughter-in-law. Plot Nos. 25A and 25C were transferred in favour of daughter-in-law (Petitioner's mother) whereas plot CTS No. 25B was transferred to his son Bernard Britto. In the year 1980, CTS No. 25 was officially subdivided by the City Survey Office into three plots bearing CTS Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C vide order of subdivision dated 1 November 1980. After his mother's death in 1988, Plot Nos. 25A and 25C were succeeded by Petitioner, his father, brother and sister. That Petitioner's father, brother and Sister executed a gift in favour of Petitioner and transferred their right, title and interest in Plot Nos. 25A and 25C in Petitioner's favour. It is Petitioner's case that in the year 1974, Plot bearing CTS No. 24 was purchased by his elder brother Kenneth Britto vide registered sale deed. That plot No. 24 was gifted in favour of Petitioner by his brother in the year 2007. 25A and 25C in Petitioner's favour. It is Petitioner's case that in the year 1974, Plot bearing CTS No. 24 was purchased by his elder brother Kenneth Britto vide registered sale deed. That plot No. 24 was gifted in favour of Petitioner by his brother in the year 2007. This is how Petitioner claims ownership in respect of Plots bearing CTS Nos. 24, 25A and 25C. 4) It is Petitioner's case that plot bearing CTS Nos. 25B and 25C have been developed and buildings are constructed thereof. That plot bearing CTS Nos. 24 and 25A are still undeveloped and are vacant and in his possession. 5) Petitioner made an application to the Collector on 6 April 2010 requesting area correction in respect of Plot bearing CTS No. 24 and 25A by increasing the area by 230.85 sq. mtrs. by changing the boundaries. The Collector directed City Survey Office to take steps in pursuance of Petitioner's Application. The City Survey Office submitted a report for correcting the area of CTS Nos. 24 and 25A. Respondent No.6, who is the owner of adjoining plot No. 22D on western side of Plot No. 24 raised an objection to the report of the City Survey Officer. That the objection was adjudicated by Superintendent of Land Records, who directed City Survey Office to re-survey the lands of Petitioner and Respondent No.6 and accordingly a Plain table Survey Plan No. 1/2010 dated 3 September 2010 was prepared by the City Survey Officer. The City Survey Officer thereafter submitted a report dated 8 October 2010 to District Superintendent of Land Records stating that there is a void space in CTS No. 25A, which is required to be included in the area of CTS No. 25A. Accordingly, the City Survey Officer recommended, by his report dated 8 October 2010, that the area of CTS No. 25A be increased by 176.20 sq. mtrs (875.9 + 176.2 =1052.1 sq mtrs). The Superintendent of Land Records, by letter dated 12 November 2010, once again directed City Survey Office to conduct re-enquiry and carry out survey by ATS machine of all neighboring plots. Accordingly, a fresh plan was submitted by City Survey Officer numbered as Moru Plan No. 1/2010. A fresh report was submitted by a City Survey Officer to the Superintendent of Land Records on 10 January 2011 stating that Plots bearing CTS Nos. Accordingly, a fresh plan was submitted by City Survey Officer numbered as Moru Plan No. 1/2010. A fresh report was submitted by a City Survey Officer to the Superintendent of Land Records on 10 January 2011 stating that Plots bearing CTS Nos. 21 to 25 were re-surveyed by ATS machine and that Petitioner's plot CTS No. 25A could be corrected as per previous report dated 8 October 2010. The reason for increasing the area of the plot CTS No. 25A was on account of gap arising out of joining of the two original Tikka Sheets being Aalekh No. 3 and Aalekh No.4, which were apparently not joined properly at the time of original Survey conducted in year 1962-1967. 6) It appears that Respondent No.6 filed a complaint before Collector on 6 April 2011 and 18 August 2011 for adding the void area located in plot CTS No. 25A in his Plot No. 22D, which has arisen out of joining of two original Tikka Sheets. The Collector passed Order after hearing both sides on 13 September 2011 directing that out of the void area of 158.60 sq. mtrs. be added in CTS No. 25A whose total area be recorded as 1034.5 sq. mtrs. in the property card. So far as plot CTS No. 22D of Respondent No.6 is concerned the Collector observed that the total area of plot No. 22 (Survey No. 9, Hissa No.2A) was 10.5 Guntha as per 7/12 extract, but the same was registered as 8.5 Guntha (843.1 sq. mtrs.) in the property card and Kami Jast Patrak while carrying out the City Survey. The Collector directed conduct of detailed enquiry about reflection of lesser area in the property card relating to Plot No. 22D. 7) Respondent No.6 challenged the Collector’s Orders dated 13 September 2011 before Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division by filing Appeal under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code). By Order dated 6 April 2017, the Additional Commissioner partly allowed Appeal of Respondent No.6 and set aside Collector's Order dated 13 September 2011. He directed the City Survey Officer Borivali, to grant opportunity to the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 to submit necessary documents and to submit a fresh report before Collector for further action. The City Survey Officer accordingly conducted a fresh enquiry in which both Petitioner and Respondent No.6 participated. He directed the City Survey Officer Borivali, to grant opportunity to the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 to submit necessary documents and to submit a fresh report before Collector for further action. The City Survey Officer accordingly conducted a fresh enquiry in which both Petitioner and Respondent No.6 participated. It is Petitioner's case that during the course of re-enquiry, the City Survey Officer erroneously surveyed only plots of Respondent No.6 namely viz CTS Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D and submitted a survey plan dated 2 January 2018. On his objection, Petitioner claims that a bogus survey was shown to have been conducted in respect of plots of Respondent No.6 alongwith plots of Petitioner and a survey map dated 23 August 2018 was prepared. According to the Petitioner, this was done without issuing notices to the neighboring land owners, including Petitioner. 8) It appears that in pursuance of the Order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 6 April 2017 directing conduct of detailed enquiry, the City Survey Officer, Borivali submitted a report dated 19 November 2018 on the basis of measurement conducted on 23 August 2018. He undertook the exercise of comparing the area of CTS Nos. 22 and 25 in 7/12 extracts with the total area of subdivided CTS Numbers in property card extract. He observed that the total area of Plot Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D on 7/12 extract was 10.5 Guntha (1062.3 sq. mtrs.) whereas the total area on property card in respect of the four plots was 854.2 sq. mtrs. He therefore opined that an area of 208.1 sq. mtrs was required to be added in respect of plot Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. He however suggested that the entire area of 208.1 sq. mtrs. be added only in CTS No. 22D. So far as Petitioner’s plots are concerned, the City Survey Officer observed that the total area of Plot Nos. 25A, 25B, and B/1 to 7 and 25C/1 and 25C/2 in 7/12 extract was 2832.8 sq. mtrs., whereas the area on property card was 2872.8 sq. mtrs. and the actual area after measurement was 3003.1 sq. mtrs. Accordingly, he directed an area of 130.3 sq. mtrs to be added in the said Plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C/1. 25A, 25B, and B/1 to 7 and 25C/1 and 25C/2 in 7/12 extract was 2832.8 sq. mtrs., whereas the area on property card was 2872.8 sq. mtrs. and the actual area after measurement was 3003.1 sq. mtrs. Accordingly, he directed an area of 130.3 sq. mtrs to be added in the said Plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C/1. 9) Based on the Survey Map dated 23 August 2018 and report of the City Survey Officer, Collector passed Order dated 3 July 2019 directing that the area as well as boundaries of plots of Respondent No.6 bearing CTS Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D should not be changed. However, Collector did not issue any directions with regard to increase in the area of Petitioner's plot No.25A. Therefore, both Petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 got aggrieved by Collector's Order dated 3 July 2019 and filed Appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. On 29 August 2020, the Additional Collector passed two separate Orders. Petitioner's Appeal seeking addition of area by 158.60 sq. mtrs./176.20 sq. mtrs. in CTS No. 25A was rejected and Collector's Order dated 3 July 2019 was upheld. So far as the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 6 is concerned, the Additional Collector dismissed his Appeal confirming Collector's Order dated 3 July 2019. 10) Petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 filed Revisions before Minister-Revenue. By Order dated 21 June 2021, the learned Minister has allowed the Revision of Respondent No.6 and has partly allowed the Revision filed by the Petitioner. The learned Minister directed area and boundary corrections in respect of CTS No. 22D as per report of the City Survey Officer dated 19 November 2018. He has further directed addition of area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. in CTS Nos. 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D as per City Survey Officer's report dated 19 November 2018. 11) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Minister on 21 June 2021 and has filed the present Petition. 12) During pendency of the present Petition, the Collector acted in pursuance of the learned Minister's Order dated 21 June 2021 and has passed Order dated 28 July 2022 directing that area of plot CTS No. 22D be increased from 385.6 sq. mtrs. to 593.7 sq. mtrs. So far as Petitioner's plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C/1 are concerned, though addition of area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. mtrs. to 593.7 sq. mtrs. So far as Petitioner's plot Nos. 25A, 25B and 25C/1 are concerned, though addition of area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. was suggested by City Survey Officer, the Collector did not direct any area correction in respect of said three survey numbers by referring to the Order passed by this Court on 5 April 2022 in Writ Petition (L) No. 7931 of 2022 wherein this Court has taken note of pendency of the present Petition and had observed that it would not be possible for the Collector to take decision about application of correction of area of Petitioner's land. Petitioner has amended the Petition and has challenged the Collector's Order dated 28 July 2022 and various other consequential survey and Orders. 13) The Petitioner has appeared in person in pursuance of the opinion of the Committee consisting of Registrar (Judicial-I) and Registrar (Judicial-II). He would submit that in proceedings initiated by the Petitioner for correction of his area of Plot bearing CTS No.25A, Respondent No.6 could not have got area correction and boundaries correction in respect of Plot No.22D. He would submit that the City Survey Officer has committed a gross error in changing boundaries of various plots for the purpose of granting unwarranted relief of area increase in respect of Plot No.22D. That change of boundaries of Plot (CTS Nos) is impermissible as such a change would lead to change of boundaries of Plots of the entire village. That in case of conflict between area and boundaries, the boundaries will prevail over measurements. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the following orders: (i) Girdharilal Dindayal Agarwal & Anr. v/s. Sarvodaya Builders Pvt. Ltd. First Appeal No.1277 of 2003 decided on 22 February 2017. (ii) Shamrao Madhu Patil V/s. Rajaram Bapu Jadhav, Second Appeal No. 856 of 2022, decided on 30 March 2023. (iii) Mehrunbi wd/o. Sheikh Ismail & Ors. V/s. Digambar Kashirao Khade, Second Appeal No. 624 of 2005, decided on 26 July 2023. (iv) M/s. Rahul Trading Corporation and anr. V/s. Bernard Anthony Pereira and ors. Order dated 6 March 2023 passed in Interim Application (L.) No. 8297 of 2021, (v) Atmaram v/s Shamrao s/o. Urkudaji Armorikar anr. Second Appeal No. 382/1993 decided on 10 July 2009. V/s. Digambar Kashirao Khade, Second Appeal No. 624 of 2005, decided on 26 July 2023. (iv) M/s. Rahul Trading Corporation and anr. V/s. Bernard Anthony Pereira and ors. Order dated 6 March 2023 passed in Interim Application (L.) No. 8297 of 2021, (v) Atmaram v/s Shamrao s/o. Urkudaji Armorikar anr. Second Appeal No. 382/1993 decided on 10 July 2009. 14) Petitioner further submits that the void is noticed in Petitioner’s Plot CTS No.25A and there is no question of Respondent No.6 being granted any benefit of that void area in his plot CTS No.22D. That the void is vertically noticed in the North Eastern direction resulting in possible increase of area in all Plots to the northern and southern side of CTS No.25A and if the impugned orders are allowed to operate, the same would enable the plot holders of the entire village to claim increase in area and change of boundaries. That the increase in area on account of void needs to be effected only in respect of the plots through which the void runs without changing the boundaries of any plots. 15) The Petitioner further submits that the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division had correctly appreciated the legal position that there is no provision for correction of boundaries and that he has rightly rejected request of Respondent No.6 for change of boundaries of his CTS No.22D. That an unwarranted benefit is bestowed upon Respondent No.6 by increasing not just the area but also the boundaries of CTS No.22D so as to enable him to develop the said plot, which is otherwise undevelopable on account of the plot being affected by road. That the entire exercise is carried out to increase the width of the sixth Respondent’s CTS No.22D for converting it from an undevelopable plot to a developable plot. That for doing so, the boundaries of Plot CTS Nos. 24, 25A, 25B and 25C are pushed eastwards thereby converting the immovable property into movable property. He would submit that Plot No.25C has already been developed with a ground plus seven building standing thereon with Occupancy Certificate granted on 1 January 2009. That therefore the boundaries between CTS No.25B and 25C could not be altered, which would put the construction on Plot No.25C into jeopardy. 16) Petitioner further submits that the report of the City Survey Officer dated 19 November 2018 is ex-facie illegal and illogical. That therefore the boundaries between CTS No.25B and 25C could not be altered, which would put the construction on Plot No.25C into jeopardy. 16) Petitioner further submits that the report of the City Survey Officer dated 19 November 2018 is ex-facie illegal and illogical. That the said report is prepared by comparing the area of Plots on the 7/12 extract with the area on the property card. By carrying out that exercise, the area of Plot C.T.S. No.24 was taken as 379.4 sq.mtrs as per the 7/12 extract, whereas, the same is 404.5 sq.mtrs on the property card. That if the logic of the City Survey Officer is to be accepted, there would be reduction of area of Plot No.24C by 25.1 sq.mtrs. He would further submit that the illogical exercise done by the City Survey Officer results in addition of entire area of 208.1 sq.mtrs in CTS No.22D though the additional area is located by comparing the entire area of CTS No.22A, B, C, D. That no area is added in CTS No.22A, B, and C and the entire area of 208.1 sq.mtrs is conveniently added selectively in CTS No.22D with the ulterior objective of converting undevelopable area into a developable one. 17) Petitioner would invite my attention to a finding recorded by the Collector in the Order dated 28 July 2022 that change in area and boundaries of CTS No.22D does not result in change in area and boundaries of CTS No.24. That this finding is factually wrong and the effect of the order of the Collector is shifting of boundaries of CTS No.24 on eastern side. That without shifting the boundary of CTS No.24, increase in the area of CTS No.22D is impossible. That, thus the Collector’s Order suffers from complete non-application of mind. He would submit that there is no allegation of any encroachment made by him in CTS No.22D and therefore there is no question of alteration of boundary. 18) The petition is opposed by Mr. Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. He would submit that the impugned exercise has resulted in increase in the area of Petitioner’s plot by 130.3 sq.mtrs and that therefore the impugned Orders are in Petitioner’s favour. That the Petitioner is unnecessarily challenging the impugned orders which infact have resulted in increase of area of his plots. Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. He would submit that the impugned exercise has resulted in increase in the area of Petitioner’s plot by 130.3 sq.mtrs and that therefore the impugned Orders are in Petitioner’s favour. That the Petitioner is unnecessarily challenging the impugned orders which infact have resulted in increase of area of his plots. He would submit that deficit area was recorded while preparing the property card in respect of the plots of Respondent No.6. That the total area of CTS No.22A, B, C and D as per the 7/12 extract was 10.5 gunthas equivalent to 1062.3 sq.mtrs, whereas the total area recorded in the property card in respect of CTS No.22A, B, C and D is only 858.2 sq.mtrs. That therefore the deficit area of 208 sq.mtrs has rightly been granted to Respondent No.6 by making an addition thereof in CTS No.22D. That by doing so, Petitioner’s area is not reduced in any manner. That there is increase by 130.3 sq.mtrs in Petitioner’s Plot No.25A, 25B, 25-B/1 and 2 to 7, 25C/1 and 25C/2. He would submit that there is no reason for this Court to entertain Petitioner’s petition. That Respondent No. 6 had initiated the proceedings first in the year 2007 for area correction of his plots. He would submit that the Collector is empowered under Section 135 of the Code to alter boundaries. 19) Mr. Subramaniam would submit that there is an alternate remedy of filing an Appeal against the Order passed by the Collector on 28 July 2022 and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing Appeal and revision. Mr. Subramaniam would further submit that Petitioner’s Plot CTS No.24 and 25A have already been acquired. In this connection, he would place reliance on Petitioner’s letter dated 31 August 2009 and Notification dated 26 August 2010. That having lost ownership over the plots, Petitioner is unnecessarily litigating. 20) Mr. Subramaniam would further submit that Petitioner did not challenge the order of Additional Collector, Konkan Division passed on 6 April 2017 which directed conduct of detailed enquiry into area reduction in property card as compared to area reflected in 7/12 extracts. That the Survey Report dated 19 November 2018 has been prepared as per Order dated 6 April 2017, which has attained finality. That the Survey Report dated 19 November 2018 has been prepared as per Order dated 6 April 2017, which has attained finality. That therefore Petitioner cannot be permitted to now turn around and question the correctness of City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. 21) Inviting my attention to the prayers in the petition, Mr. Subramaniam would submit that Petitioner wants increase in his area by 176.20 sq.mtrs whereas he has already been granted area increase by 130.3 sq.mtrs leaving the difference of only 45.90 sq.mtrs. That without prejudice, Respondent No.6 is ready to consider conduct of re-survey for addition of balance area of 45.90 sq.mtrs in Petitioner’s plot. That for such minuscule difference in area by 45.90 sq.mtrs, the substantial increase in the area of Respondent No.6 of 208.8 sq.mtrs be not set aside. He would pray for dismissal of the petition. 22) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration. 23) From the factual position narrated above, it is clear that the proceedings essentially started on account of Petitioner’s plea for inclusion of void area passing through CTS No.25A into his plots bearing CTS No.24 and 25A. He initiated proceedings by filing an application before the Collector on 6 April 2010. The application was apparently filed consequent to a physical survey and measurement, which showed that the actual areas of Plot CTS Nos. 24 and 25A were higher than the one reflected in the property card. Petitioner therefore requested that a direction be given to the City Survey Officer to physically measure CTS Nos.24 and 25A and to make necessary boundary corrections in the property card by adding the increased area therein. Independent of Petitioner’s application, Respondent No. 6 had made application dated 5 December 2007 for area and boundary correction of his Plots bearing CTS Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. Details of application made by Respondent No. 6 are discussed in subsequent paragraphs. 24) Turning back to Petitioner’s application dated 6 April 2010, the same was restricted to area correction only in Plot Nos. 24 and 25A. Though Petitioner now submits that it is not permissible for City Survey Officer or Collector to change the boundaries, he himself requested for change of boundaries of Plot CTS Nos. 24 and 25A. Be that as it may. 24 and 25A. Though Petitioner now submits that it is not permissible for City Survey Officer or Collector to change the boundaries, he himself requested for change of boundaries of Plot CTS Nos. 24 and 25A. Be that as it may. A survey was conducted and the City Survey Officer, who submitted report dated 8 October 2010 opined that the actual area of Plot CTS No. 25A was 1052.1 sq.mtrs after inclusion of void area in CTS No.25A. So far as the area of Plot CTS No.24 was concerned, no change was suggested. Plot No.25 was found to be subdivided into Plot Nos. 25A, 25B, 25C/1 and 25C/2. The City Survey Officer recommended that the increased area be included in CTS No.25A possibly because of the void running through Plot CTS No.25A. For better understanding of the location of plots of Petitioner and Respondent No.6 and the Petitioner’s assertion of void space running in north-south direction through CTS No.25A, it would be appropriate to incorporate rough plan annexed by Petitioner at Exhibit-A to the petition. 25) The above rough plan would show the void area running through Plot CTS No.25A which is admittedly owned by the Petitioner. The void area is apparently created on account of non-matching of two tikka sheets being Aalekh No. 3 and Aalekh No.4 and the void area runs not just through CTS No.25A but also through several plots in northern and southern directions of CTS No.25A. Petitioner desired inclusion of that void area, which was physically possessed by him in plot bearing CTS No.25A. Accordingly, the City Survey Officer had opined increase in the area of Petitioner’s CTS No.25A by 176.2 sq. mtrs by Report dated 8 October 2010. 26) The above Report of the City Survey Officer was placed before the Collector. This is the stage where Respondent No. 6 appeared on the scene by filing complaints dated 6 April 2011 and 18 August 2011 before the Collector. As observed above, though Respondent No. 6 had allegedly made an application on 5 December 2007, the same was not acted upon and apparently Respondent No. 6 had slept over the issue thereafter. In unrelated proceedings filed by Petitioner seeking area and boundary correction of his Plot CTS Nos. 24 and 25A, Respondent No. 6 intervened and filed his complaints, which are not placed on record, but the same are referred in the Collector’s decision. In unrelated proceedings filed by Petitioner seeking area and boundary correction of his Plot CTS Nos. 24 and 25A, Respondent No. 6 intervened and filed his complaints, which are not placed on record, but the same are referred in the Collector’s decision. It would be necessary to consider the nature of grievance of Respondent No. 6 at this stage. It appears that Respondent No.6 was aggrieved by non-matching of total area of his Plot bearing CTS Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D on 7/12 extract with the total area of the said four plots reflected the property card. According to him, the area of 4 Plots in the 7/12 extract was 10.5 Guntha i.e. 1062.3 sq.mtrs whereas on the property card, the area reflected after conduct of City Survey was only 854.2 sq.mtrs. His first demand therefore was to match the areas on 7/12 extract with Property Card. The second and major difficulty of Respondent No.6 appears to be the narrow width of Plot bearing CTS No.22D which is apparently not developable on account of such narrow width coupled with a road passing alongside CTS No.22D towards western side. Respondent No.6 therefore desired that the eastern side boundary of his Plot No.22D be shifted more eastwards so that the width of his plot becomes broader, and the plot becomes developable. It was not possible for him to increase the bounds of Plot No.22D on the western side, where a road is already constructed by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, by raising a grievance about non-matching of area of Plot No.22A, B, C and D on the 7/12 extract with the area on the property card, Respondent No.6 actually desired that the boundary of Plot No.22D be shifted on the eastern side more eastwards by adding the alleged deficit area only in Plot No. 22D. 27) Respondent No. 6 therefore objected to inclusion of void area only in Petitioner’s plot CTS No.25A and apparently desired that the benefit of the said void must be given to him so as to make good the loss of area while preparing the property card in respect of CTS No.22A, B, C and D. Mr. Subramanian, during the course of submissions however has contended that a strip of vacant land existed between Plot Nos. 22D and 24 and Respondent No. 6 desired inclusion of that vacant strip towards eastern side into his Plot No. 22D. Subramanian, during the course of submissions however has contended that a strip of vacant land existed between Plot Nos. 22D and 24 and Respondent No. 6 desired inclusion of that vacant strip towards eastern side into his Plot No. 22D. If this was the case, why Respondent No. 6 intervened in proceedings initiated by Petitioner and why he objected to area correction of Petitioner’s plots is something which is not explained. Be that as it may. As observed above, Respondent No. 6 filed complaint dated 6 April 2011 and 18 August 2011 before the Collector, who passed Order dated 13 September 2011 allowing inclusion of the void area in CTS No.25A with a correction that instead of inclusion of area of 176.2 sq.mtrs, he directed that area of 158.6 sq.mtrs be so included. So far as complaint of Respondent No. 6 about non-matching of area of Plot CTS No.22A, 22B, 22C and 22D on 7/12 extract with area on property card is concerned, the Collector directed conduct of detailed enquiry. 28) Respondent No.6 got aggrieved by Collector’s Order dated 13 September 2011 and filed Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, who partly allowed the Appeal, set aside Collector’s Order and directed the City Survey Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry after grant of opportunity of hearing to both the parties. This is where the City Survey Officer prepared Report dated 19 November 2018, which is the cause of the entire problem. The City Survey Officer undertook the area matching exercise by comparing area on 7/12 extract with area on the property card in respect of the 6th Respondent’s Plot CTS No. 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D and Petitioner’s Plot No.25A, 25B, 25B/1 to 7, 25C/1 and 25C/2. He found that the total area of CTS No.22A, 22B, 22C and 22D on the 7/12 extract was 10.5 Guntha equivalent to 1062.3 sq.mtrs whereas on the property card, the area reflected was only 854.2 sq.mtrs. This is why the City Survey Officer held that there was a deficit area of 208.01 sq. mtrs in respect of Plot CTS No.22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. However, without indicating any reasons, the City Survey Officer directed that the entire deficit area of 208.1 sq.mtrs be added only in CTS No.22D. As observed above, Plot No.22D is undevelopable on account of its narrow width and presence of road on the western side. mtrs in respect of Plot CTS No.22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. However, without indicating any reasons, the City Survey Officer directed that the entire deficit area of 208.1 sq.mtrs be added only in CTS No.22D. As observed above, Plot No.22D is undevelopable on account of its narrow width and presence of road on the western side. To get over this difficulty, the area increase appears to have been selectively effected only in respect of CTS No.22D. There is no logical explanation to this exercise of the City Survey Officer. 29) So far as the Petitioner’s Plots are concerned, the City Survey Officer observed that the total area of Plot No.25A, 25B, 25B 1 to 7, 25C/1 and 25C/2 on the 7/12 extract was 2832.8 sq.mtrs and the total area on property card was 2872.8 sq.mtrs. However, on physical measurement, the actual area was found at 3003.1 sq.mtrs. This is how deficit area of 130.3 sq.mtrs. is located in respect of CTS No.25A, 25B, 25B/1 to 7, 25C-1 and 25C-2. This deficit is not between the area in the 7/12 extract and area in the property card but the deficit is in area in property card and area actually found after measurement. However, qua Respondent No. 6, the deficit is found between areas of 7/12 extract and property card and on actual measurement of Plot CTS No. 22D no deficit area was found. In respect of Plot No.24, though the area in the 7/12 extract was less i.e. 379.4 sq.mtrs as compared to area on property card of 404.5 sq.mtrs., no corrective exercise is carried out without any justification. Thus, three different yardsticks appear to have been applied by the City Survey Officer qua three sets of plots as under: (i) For Plots of Respondent No. 6 (CTS Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D) difference between areas of 7/12 extract and PR card was taken as deficit area for making addition in area in CTS No. 22D. (ii) For Plot bearing CTS No. 24 of Petitioner, though difference was noticed in areas of 7/12 extract and PR Card, such deficit was ignored, possibly to ensure that the area of Plot No. 24 on PR card is not reduced to 379.4 sq. mtrs from 404.5 sq.mtrs. (iii) For Plots CTS Nos. (ii) For Plot bearing CTS No. 24 of Petitioner, though difference was noticed in areas of 7/12 extract and PR Card, such deficit was ignored, possibly to ensure that the area of Plot No. 24 on PR card is not reduced to 379.4 sq. mtrs from 404.5 sq.mtrs. (iii) For Plots CTS Nos. 25A, 25B, 25B/1 to 7, 25C-1 and 25C-2, though no difference was noticed in area reflected in 7/12 extract and PR Card, the City Survey Officer applied altogether different yardstick of physical measurement of Plots to arrive at deficit area. If this yardstick of physical measurement was to be applied to Plot of Respondent No. 6 CTS No. 22D, there would not have been any deficit in CTS No. 22D. 30) Application of different yardsticks by the City Survey Officer has resulted in another folly where the additional area of 130.3 sq. mtrs. is randomly divided by him into three Plots bearing CTS Nos.25A (+56.2 sq.m), 25B(+15.8 sq.m) and 25C-1 (+58.7 sq. m). This has apparently happened as the yardstick of physical measurement is applied for Petitioner’s Plots as contradistinct from the yardstick of difference in area of 7/12 extract and PR Card for Plot CTS No. 22D of Respondent No. 6, who is randomly granted the entire alleged deficit area of 208.01 sq. mtrs in Plot No. 22D alone. As observed above, Plot No.25C has already been developed and a building with Occupancy Certificate is standing thereon. The City Survey Officer has not answered as to where the increase in area of 58.7 sq. mtrs in respect of Plot No. 25C-1 would be effected? The details of area correction exercise carried out by the City Survey Officer in Report dated 19 November 2018 is as under: 31) As observed above, recommendation of area correction in CTS No.22D from 385.6 sq.mtrs to 593.7 sq.mtrs. is on paper as the same is not recommended as a result of physical measurement of Plot CTS No. 22D. Therefore, to give effect to such area correction, physical shifting of boundaries of CTS No. 22D became necessary. As observed above, it is impossible to shift the boundaries of CTS No. 22D on western side on account of existence of road. Therefore, the only way to give area addition in CTS No. 22D was to shift the boundary of that Plot towards eastern side i.e. where Petitioner’s Plot CTS No. 24 is situated. As observed above, it is impossible to shift the boundaries of CTS No. 22D on western side on account of existence of road. Therefore, the only way to give area addition in CTS No. 22D was to shift the boundary of that Plot towards eastern side i.e. where Petitioner’s Plot CTS No. 24 is situated. This is how the City Survey Officer’s report has disturbed the entire apple cart by changing areas and boundaries of plots by applying different yardsticks to different plots. 32) When report of City Survey Officer was submitted before the Collector, he refused to accept the same and rejected the prayer of Respondent No.6 for change of area and boundaries of CTS No.22D. The Collector recorded a specific finding that there is no provision under the Rules for change in the boundaries of CTS numbers. He further recorded a finding that the subdivision of plots into CTS Nos.22A, B, C, D was finalised on 31 December 1999. The Collector therefore rejected the prayer of Respondent No.6 for correction in area and boundaries of CTS Nos.22A, B, C and D. It appears that no cognizance was taken by the Collector about Petitioner’s request for increase in the area of his CTS No.25A. 33) Therefore, both Petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 filed Appeals before the Additional Collector, Konkan Division, who passed two separate Orders on 29 August 2020. So far as Appeal filed by Respondent No.6 is concerned, the Additional Commissioner reiterated Collector’s finding that there is no provision for change of boundaries of CTS Numbers under Section 135 of the Code. He accordingly rejected the Appeal of Respondent No.6. So far as Petitioner’s Appeal was concerned, by a separate order passed on 29 August 2020, the Additional Commissioner virtually copied the Order passed in case of Respondent No.6 without paying any attention to the request of Petitioner for increase in the area of his CTS No.25A. Both Petitioner and Respondent No.6 filed Revisions before the learned Minister-Revenue. A common order has been passed on 21 June 2021 allowing Revision of Respondent No.6 and directing increase in area and boundary correction in respect of CTS No.22D as per City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. Petitioner’s Revision is partly allowed by directing area correction in respect of Plot Nos.25A, B, C, D as per City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. Petitioner’s Revision is partly allowed by directing area correction in respect of Plot Nos.25A, B, C, D as per City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. Thus, what is done by the learned Minister, Revenue is to follow the report of the City Survey Officer dated 19 November 2018. 34) Perusal of the entire Order passed by the learned Minister-Revenue would indicate that he has held that Collector has power under Section 135 to correct the boundaries of City Survey numbers. He further held that while seeking area and boundary corrections, Respondent No. 6 did not request for inclusion of area of void passing through CTS No.25A in his area. The learned Minister held that the area correction has arisen on account of actual measurement conducted in respect of the land bearing CTS No.22. On these broad findings, the learned Minister has proceeded to direct that area corrections in respect of the plots of Petitioner and Respondent No.6 be effected in accordance with City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. 35) After passing of Order by the learned Minister, the Collector has passed Order dated 28 July 2022. Before Collector’s order dated 28 July 2022, it appears that a survey was conducted for fixing boundaries of plots in accordance with the City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. Based on that survey, Measurement Map No.1904/2021 dated 29 October 2021 is prepared by the City Survey Office, the exercise of physical shifting of boundaries of Plot of Respondent No. 6 CTS No. 22D is carried out. It is Petitioner’s case that boundaries of CTS No. 22D have been shifted inside Petitioner’s CTS No. 24. 36) Taking note of the said Report of the City Survey Officer dated 19 November 2018 as well as the Measurement Map No.1904/2021 dated 29 October 2021, the Collector has proceeded to pass Order dated 28 July 2022. In her Order, the Collector has directed increase in the area of CTS No.22D from 385.6 sq.mtrs to 593.7 sq.mtrs. Additionally, she also directed change of boundaries of CTS No.22D as indicated in the Measurement Map No.1904/2021. In her Order, the Collector has directed increase in the area of CTS No.22D from 385.6 sq.mtrs to 593.7 sq.mtrs. Additionally, she also directed change of boundaries of CTS No.22D as indicated in the Measurement Map No.1904/2021. Though the Collector wanted to effect change in the areas of Plot Nos.25A, 25B and 25C1 as per the City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018, she felt restrained from doing so on account of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 5 April 2022 in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 7931 of 2022. The said petition was apparently filed by the Petitioner in pursuance of certain queries raised by him about City Survey reports dated 8 October 2010, 10 January 2011 and 4 August 2011 of the City Survey Officer. While dismissing the petition, this Court passed the following Order on 5 April 2022 : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petition is misplaced and misconceived. The Petitioner contends to have filed an application for correction of his area. There are several reports on record. The Petitioner has filed an application to the Collector seeking answers on the queries raised by him. 3. The Collector is not supposed to reply such queries. This is not an application filed under the Right to Information Act. The Collector has to decide the proceedings one way or other. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the order of the Hon’ble Minister is challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court. According to the learned counsel, less area is recorded of the Petitioner’s land. The said order also affects the boundaries. 4. As the matter is already subjudiced before the learned Single Judge of this Court with regard to the area and boundaries of the Petitioner’s land, it would not be possible for the Collector to take decision upon the application for correction of the area. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Single Judge is seized with the matter and the application filed by the Petitioner certainly is not asking to decide anything but only raising queries before the Collector. The same certainly would not be appropriate. The parties shall be bound by the judgment delivered by this court in the proceedings pending and filed by the Petitioner. 6. The same certainly would not be appropriate. The parties shall be bound by the judgment delivered by this court in the proceedings pending and filed by the Petitioner. 6. In the light of that, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 37) Since this Court referred to pendency of this petition and observed that Collector would not be in a position to take decision about correction of area of Petitioner’s plot, the Collector has not effected any change in the area of Petitioner’s plots. Otherwise, the Collector would have added area of 130.3 sq.mtrs and Plot No.25A, 25B and 25C as per City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. 38) Petitioner contends that the Collector does not have jurisdiction to change the boundaries of the CTS numbers. This submission of Petitioner actually flies in the face of his own application dated 6 April 2010. However rather than deciding the scope of Collector’s power to effect change in boundary of CTS Numbers on the basis of understanding of Petitioner, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 135 of the Code, which reads thus: 135. Disputes regarding boundaries between villages, survey numbers and sub-divisions of area of any survey number or sub-division. If any dispute arises concerning the boundary of a village or a field or a holding which has not been surveyed, or if at any time after the completion of a survey, a dispute arises concerning the boundary of any village or boundary or area of any survey number or sub-division of a survey number, it shall be decided by the Collector after holding a formal inquiry at which the concerned officers and all persons interested shall have an opportunity of appearing and producing evidence. The Collector may, while deciding such dispute or, otherwise after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned persons and officer, also correct any error in the area or assessment of a survey number or sub-division of a survey number due to mistake of survey or arithmetical miscalculation : Provided that, no arrears of land revenue shall become payable by reason of such correction; but excess payment as land revenue made, if any, shall be adjusted against the payment of land revenue which may become due. 39) Thus plain reading of Section 135 of the Code would indicate that though Collector is given power to entertain a dispute concerning ‘boundary of any village or boundary or area of any survey number or sub-division of survey number,’ the final decision which the Collector can take is restricted to “correct any error in the area or assessment of a survey number or sub-division of a survey number due to mistake of survey or arithmetical miscalculation”. This the possible reason why both the Collector and Additional Commissioner had, on earlier occasions, held that there is no provision for shifting of boundaries in the Code. 40) In my view, it is not necessary to delve deeper into the power of the Collector to alter boundaries of CTS numbers in the present case. The issue is therefore left open to be decided in the appropriate case. The present case can be decided on facts thereof. The undisputed facts are that Petitioner and Respondent No.6 have independent grievances in respect of their plots, their areas and boundaries. Mr. Subramaniam has placed on record alongwith the compilation filed on 26 February 2024, copy of application dated 5 December 2007 made by Respondent No.6 to the Collector for correction of area and boundaries of CTS No.22A, B, C and D. The Application is in Marathi and is translated as under : Plot No.22 forming part of City Survey-Mandpeshwar, Taluka-Borivali was the part of Survey No.9, Hissa No.2 admeasuring 10.5 Guntas as per record of rights in 7/12 extract. The said land is in my possessions since my ancestors and on 7/12 extract, its area is recorded as 10.5 gunthas. The said land has been purchased vide Document No.963/62 dated 9 April 1962 with area of 1241 sq.yards equivalent to approximately 1100 sq.mtrs. However in City Survey No.22, the area of land is recorded as 843.1 sq.mtrs. In that land, CTS No.23 has been included and its area of 11.1 sq.mtrs is added. This is how total area of CTS No.22 is recorded as 854.2 sq.mtrs. This means that lesser area than the one recorded in the 7/12 extract is reflected in the City Survey in respect of my land. I am therefore making application for correction of area and boundaries of CTS No.22. Original CTS No.22 is on the boundary of Mandpeshwar and Eksar Villages. This means that lesser area than the one recorded in the 7/12 extract is reflected in the City Survey in respect of my land. I am therefore making application for correction of area and boundaries of CTS No.22. Original CTS No.22 is on the boundary of Mandpeshwar and Eksar Villages. The area correction of original CTS No.22 would occur as a result of boundary correction of Mandpeshwar and Eksar Villages. I therefore request that the boundaries of Mandpeshwar, CTS No.22 and Eksar CTS No. 2786 and 2786 1/11 be corrected. 41) Perusal of the Application made by Respondent No.6 on 5 December 2007 would indicate that he had absolutely no grievance about the area and boundaries of plots of Petitioner. He desired area and boundary correction in respect of his own plots bearing CTS No. 22A, B, C and D. Last paragraph of the letter shows the ground on which the boundary and area correction in CTS No. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D was sought i.e. on account of correction in boundaries of Villages-Mandpeshwar and Eksar. The last sentence in the application makes it crystal clear that what Respondent No. 6 desired was boundary correction of his CTS No. 22 of Village-Mandpeshwar with the boundaries of Plot bearing CTS No.2786 and 2786 1/11 of Eksar Village. The rough sketch reproduced above would indicate presence of CTS No. 2786 on western side of CTS No.22 and particularly abuts sub-divided Plot No.22B. Thus, Respondent No.6 commenced his proceedings for his area correction on western side of his plot and the boundary correction was specifically sought qua CTS No.2786 and 2786 1/11 of Eksar Village. Instead of pursuing that application, Respondent No.6 unnecessarily intervened in Petitioner’s unconnected proceedings which were initiated by Petitioner for area correction of his Plot CTS No.24 and 25A. Unfortunately, none of the authorities have noticed this while unnecessarily mixing the objection of Respondent No.6 while deciding the application of Petitioner. 42) The net result of mixing of independent proceedings is that in proceedings initiated by Petitioner for correction of his area and boundaries of his own plots, Petitioner has lost and Respondent No.6 has succeeded. Thus, in proceedings filed by the Petitioner, Respondent No.6 is offered relief on a platter and as observed earlier, by applying different yardsticks for different plots by the City Survey Officer. Thus, in proceedings filed by the Petitioner, Respondent No.6 is offered relief on a platter and as observed earlier, by applying different yardsticks for different plots by the City Survey Officer. In my view, therefore the impugned Order passed by the Learned Minister is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018 itself is full of errors. The Learned Minister has erred in directing the Collector to act on the City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018. The learned Minister has failed to appreciate that the cause of action for the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 are entirely different and their proceedings could not have been decided together. The proceedings initiated by Respondent No.6 in the year 2007 gives a clear idea of what exactly he wanted and he later made a departure by seeking to intervene in Petitioner’s proceedings by filing Complaints dated 6 April 2011 and 18 August 2011. Respondent No.6 had no business to intervene in the proceedings filed by the Petitioner. He ought to have prosecuted his own proceedings initiated vide application dated 5 December 2007. It is therefore necessary that the proceedings filed by the Petitioner for area and boundary correction of his own Plots No.24 and 25A are decided independently from the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.6 for area and boundary correction of his own CTS Nos.22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. The learned Minister has also ignored the fact that subdivision of plots into CTS Nos.22A, B, C, D was finalised on 31 December 1999 and Respondent No. 6 had never raised a grievance about boundary dispute with Petitioner’s Plot CTS No. 24 towards eastern side until he filed complaints in Petitioner’s proceedings in the year 2011. The learned Minister has also recorded an erroneous finding that grant of relief to Respondent No. 6 does not effect change in boundaries of CTS No. 24, when in fact the measurement map dated 29 October 2021 prepared by the City Survey Officer clearly shows shifting of boundaries between plot CTS Nos. 22D and 24. The Order passed by the Learned Minister is thus clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 22D and 24. The Order passed by the Learned Minister is thus clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 43) Petitioner in Person has relied on judgments of this Court in Girdharilal Dindayal Agarwal, Shamrao Madhu Patil, Mehrunbi wd/o. Sheikh Ismail, Rahul Trading Corporation and Atmaram in support of his contention that in dispute between area and boundaries, the boundaries would prevail. In my view, it is not necessary to go into the issue of dispute between area and boundaries considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 44) I therefore find the Order passed by the Learned Minister-Revenue to be indefensible. Consequent reports and maps prepared by the City Survey Officer as well as the Collector’s order are also liable to be set aside. The Collector needs to decide applications of Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 independently. 45) I accordingly proceed to pass the following Order : i. Order dated 21 June 2021 passed by the learned Minister-Revenue, City Survey Officer’s Report dated 19 November 2018, Measurement Map No. 1904 of 2021 dated 29 October 2021 prepared by the City Survey Officer and the Order dated 28 July 2022 passed by the Collector, Mumbai, Suburban District are set aside. ii. Proceedings filed by Petitioner for area and boundary correction of Plot bearing CTS No.24 and 25A are restored on the file of Collector, Mumbai Suburban District who shall either rely upon earlier reports of the City Survey Officer dated 8 October 2010 or conduct a fresh survey through the City Survey Officer in respect of CTS No.24 and 25A and decide the proceedings filed by the Petitioner for area and boundary correction of CTS No.24 and 25A afresh. iii. Respondent No.6 would be at liberty to prosecute the application dated 5 December 2007 filed by him before the Collector or can file fresh proceedings for correction of area and boundaries of CTS No. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D. Such proceedings initiated by Respondent No.6 shall be decided independently and without mixing the same with the proceedings filed by the Petitioner. iv. So far as proceedings initiated by the Petitioner are concerned, the Collector shall take expeditious action thereon, preferably within a period of six months by passing final order on Petitioner’s application. 46) With the above directions, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute. iv. So far as proceedings initiated by the Petitioner are concerned, the Collector shall take expeditious action thereon, preferably within a period of six months by passing final order on Petitioner’s application. 46) With the above directions, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.