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.

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 prov