Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri M.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. Present petition arises out of proceedings initiated under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 15.6.2002 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia i.e. respondent No. 2. The petitioner preferred a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred as ‘LR Act’) which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Ist) Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide order dated 31.3.2004.

3. The case of the petitioner is that an application dated 3.2.1999 was moved by her under Section 28 of the LR ACT and Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963(hereinafter referred as ‘CH Act’). The claim of the petitioner was that plot No. 325/1 area 0.9 Decimal and 326 area 0.03 Decimal situate in Pindhara, Post Bansdih, District Ballia has been given new number in the consolidation proceedings held in the village being 240 (E) area 12 Decimal. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that in the new map prepared after consolidation of the village, the location of plot No. 240-E area 12 Decimal has been shown at a distance of 500 meter towards south of crossing of canal and road. The petitioner only mentioned for correction of map taking into consideration of the map prior to the consolidation proceedings initiated in the village.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that prior to moving of this application for correction of map in the year 1999, the Original Suit No. 790 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. However, the petitioner did not pursue the said suit and it was dismissed on account of non-appearance on 28.10.1987. The respondent No. 3 having no right or title over the land in question, filed an objection before the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Additional Commissioner and Tehsildar submitted their reports in favour of the petitioner and Tehsildar in his report has clearly stated that the corrections are to be made in the map on the basis of existing situation on the spot. The position of petitioner’s plot has been wrongly shown in the map prepared after the consolidation. The Additional District Magistrate in its order dated 15.6.2002 has rejected the application moved by the petitioner only on the ground that the documents produced by the petitioner are insufficient to make corrections in the map as no chak map has been produced by the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate further stated that the chak map is the only basis for correction in the map prepared after the consolidation and no correction can be made on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner and that the petitioner has failed to establish her case and as such application is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Additional District Magistrate has committed illegality in rejecting the application only on the ground of non-availability of chak map and the same could have been obtained from the record of office maintained by the revenue authorities.

6. He further submits that on the revision under Section 219 of the LR Act moved by the petitioner, the revisional Court has recorded the finding of its own and concluded that there is no existence of plot No. 240(E) on the spot. It has further recorded that as per CH Form 2-Ka, the corrected plot No. 325/1 (new plot No. 240E) has found place as concrete road. There is no existence of plot No. 240-E and it cannot be shown in the map. It further concluded that in case such a proceeding is initiated, then the