1. Dispute regarding correction of revenue map under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, following a previously settled application for similar relief. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Suvej Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ram Naresh And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14661 Of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 1681 of 2024)
Decided On : 09-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Surendra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Tarun Khanna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mangal Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Pandit, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Rajput, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Surendra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Tarun Khanna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mangal Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Pandit, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Rajput, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
The Supreme Court affirmed that issues previously settled cannot be re-litigated under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code unless substantial errors arise, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 30 - Writ petition challenging order for correction of revenue map - High Court remanded matter for fresh consideration - Court found High Court erred in misinterpreting Section 30; matter concerning settled ownership should not be re-litigated - No fresh grounds were found to reconsider previous orders - (Paras 12-18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant contested High Court's order remanding the issue of map corrections, after previous attempts by private respondents to modify it were dismissed spanning over 17 years, with affirmed findings regarding possession and ownership.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order misapplied Section 30 of the Code; jurisdiction to reopen settled issues was improperly exercised.
Issues: Whether the High Court's remand of the case was justified or whether it misapplied legal provisions regarding settled matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that once an issue has attained finality, particularly after extensive litigation history, it should not be reopened without compelling reasons; jurisdiction under Section 30 pertains solely to correcting errors or omissions, not altering circumstances.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues the issue attained finality and Section 30 covers only errors; respondents contend Section 30 requires annual maintenance and remand orders are generally not interfered with. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The court observed that the respondents sought to change plot location rather than correct a genuine error, and the issue had attained finality seventeen years prior. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Section 30 of the Code permits correction of errors or omissions but cannot be used to reopen settled issues or change the location of a plot. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed and the High Court order remanding the matter for fresh consideration set aside. (Para 15 , 18 )
6. What is the scope of the Collector's power to correct revenue maps under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006?
The Collector must maintain maps and field books, recording changes annually. Additionally, the Collector may correct errors or omissions detected from time to time. This power does not extend to changing the location of a plot to obtain a more valuable position. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. Can a settled issue regarding revenue map correction be reopened after a significant time lapse under the UP Revenue Code?
No. If an issue regarding map correction has attained finality and there is no genuine error or omission in the record, it cannot be reopened years later to seek a more favorable plot location. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 )
8. When can a higher court interfere with an interlocutory order remanding a case for fresh consideration?
While remand orders are generally not interfered with, a court may do so if the remand is based on a wrong legal premise or misinterpretation of the law, to prevent unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. (Para 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the impugned order1[Writ C No.28878 of 2023] dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High Court2[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.53[Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit] and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by respondent No.44[Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit]. Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders had remanded the case to the respondent No.4 for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case, as available on record, are that an application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector seeking correction of map for Plot No.22. The same was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.1998. It was on the basis of a Commission’s Report available in the file showing that the appellant was in possession of Plot No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant was in possession of Plot Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private respondents were in possession of Plot No.22/3.
3.1 The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2001.
4. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20065[For short “the Code”]. The prayer was for correction of the revenue map. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.01.2020 while taking into consideration the fact that an earlier effort made by the private respondents for the same relief had been negatived. The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents before the respondent No.5, who vide order dated 25.04.2023 upheld the order passed by the respondent No.4 as there was no good reason to reopen the issue settled long back. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the private respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The High Court set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4 herein for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt vide impugned order, the matter has been remanded for consideration afresh and even thereafter, in case the appellant is aggrieved, he can avail of his remedies but still, in the case in hand, interference by this Court is required to stop multiplicity of litigation. It is a case in which possession of the parties was determined after consolidation. The revenue map was approved. Initially, the private respondents sought to raise an issue for correction of revenue map. The application was dismissed on 27.05.1998. The order was upheld by respondent no.5 on 04.09.2001. No issue was raised by private respondents any further. The order dated 04.09.2021 attained finality.
5.1 About 17 years later, after ‘the Code’ came into force, the private respondents again filed an application under Section 30/38 of the Code for correction of the map. The same was rightly dismissed by the respondent No.4. The order was upheld by the respondent No.5 in appeal. However, the High Court, on wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Code, had set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remanded the matter. In fact, the jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Code could not be invoked as correction was possible only if there were any errors or omissions. That is not the case here. The private respondents sought to raise the same issue, which had earlier attained finality. It is their greediness to have openin
