Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 762 (ALL)

Chhote Lal v. State of U. P.

2024-03-11

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2024
JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6 & 7 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed notice to respondents no.4 & 5 is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reason that these respondents even after appearance would not be in position to dispute the facts of the case and this process would delay the disposal of the present petition. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya). The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. 4. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that an application under Section 28 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the 'Act of 1901) was preferred by the petitioner for correction of map. This application was preferred in relation to Gata No./601 area 611 hec. (old No.239 M. area 0.033 hec., 455 M. area 0.74 hec. and 460 M./1 area 0.504) situated at village-Devanpara, Pargana and Tehsil-Milkipur, District-Ayodhya. 5. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was registered as Case No.128/58 (Computerized Case No.D20130423001960) under Section 28 of the Act of 1901. 6. The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya), considering the report submitted by the concerned revenue official as also the relevant documents on record, dismissed the aforesaid case by impugned order dated 19.08.2016. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2016, the petitioner preferred a revision which was registered as Case no. 610/2017 (Computerized Case No.C20170400610 "Chhole Lal v. Gram Sabha) under Section 210 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006. The revisional authority by the impugned order 25.01.2023 affirmed the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- 8. The law on the aforesaid aspect is crystal clear. The Collector/District Magistrate is under obligation to correct the revenue records in view of the provisions as envisaged under the Act of 1901 as also under the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code of 2006). The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- 8. The law on the aforesaid aspect is crystal clear. The Collector/District Magistrate is under obligation to correct the revenue records in view of the provisions as envisaged under the Act of 1901 as also under the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code of 2006). The reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by this Court in Writ - C No.3818 of 2023 (Ravindra Kumar v. State of U. P. And Others). 9. This Court in the above-mentioned judgment considered Para 101 of Chakbandi Manual, Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relevant provisions of Code of 2006 and various pronouncements on the issue related to correction of revenue records and thereafter observed as under: "26. Thus, from the above quoted provisions particularly the expression 'any error or omission' used in Section 30 of Code, 2006 and Rule 36(5) of Rules, 2016 as also the expression 'any error proved to have been made in the records previously prepared' indicated in Section 32 of Code, 2006 and the judgments referred above, it is crystal clear that if the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni) contains 'any error or omission', he shall direct for the correction thereof. The Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, is under obligation to correct 'any error or omission' in relation to map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni). As per provisions quoted above, the order of correction of map shall be passed by Collector and in the matter of other correction by Sub-Divisional Officer. Statutory provisions above referred do not say that any error or omission in the map if is of three biswas or less then the Collector can refuse to correct the map. 27. Under Section 30 of Code, 2006, the Collector is required to maintain a map of each village in his district. The importance of the correct maintenance of village maps cannot be over-emphasized as the map is the starting point of the land records of a village and an error in it is likely to render all the records of the village erroneous. It defines the boundaries of the village and also of each field in the village. 28. The importance of the correct maintenance of village maps cannot be over-emphasized as the map is the starting point of the land records of a village and an error in it is likely to render all the records of the village erroneous. It defines the boundaries of the village and also of each field in the village. 28. It also reflects from the aforesaid that revenue records viz. map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni) can be corrected even after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 by the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be. 29. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that it is the duty of the Collector to correct the map if 'any error or omission' is apparent and Code, 2006 or Rules, 2016 do not provide any discretion to the Collector to refuse the said correction based upon the Para 101 of 'Chakbandi Manual'. 30. As per statutory provisions indicated above particularly in view of Section 38 of Code, 2006, the proceedings regarding the correction of revenue records including the map should be initiated on an application preferred in this regard or on 'any error or omission' is otherwise come to the knowledge of Tehsildar concerned. Further, in the statutory provisions, it has not been indicated that who can prefer an application for correction of revenue records including the application for correction of map. Thus, a person having knowledge of discrepancy in revenue records can provide the information in this regard to Tehsildar concerned who shall thereafter make such inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary, and refer the case along with his report to the Collector in the case of map correction and the Sub-Divisional Officer in matter of other correction." 10. In this case, an application for correction of Map was given under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 and this provision also does not provide any discretion to the Collector to refuse the correction based upon Para 101 of Chakbandi Manual. 11. According to the aforesaid judgment, the collector is under obligation to correct the Map 12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya) and the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, are hereby set aside. 11. According to the aforesaid judgment, the collector is under obligation to correct the Map 12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya) and the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, are hereby set aside. 13. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to decide the matter afresh, after affording opportunities of hearing to the concerned. 14. It is open for the respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya), for the purposes of proper adjudication of the case, to call a fresh report in the matter and it is expected that while deciding the case afresh, he would take note of the observations made by this Court in the judgment referred above. 15. It is further directed that the decision in this regard be taken within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 16. Till disposal of the application, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the property in issue. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is allowed.