The court clarified the competence of the Chief Revenue Officer to exercise powers of the Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and established that the proceeding for correction of the final consolidation map is not barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, for the contesting respondent-6, who put appearance today.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Chief Revenue Officer dated 29.09.2007 and Additional Commissioner dated 31.08.2015 passed under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Raj Nath Singh (respondent-6), who was owner of plot 424 (area 8-5-16 bigha), filed an application (registered as Case No. 668/198) under Section 28 of the Act, for correction of Final Settlement Map relating to plots 405, 408, 421 and 424 of village Baraipara, pargana Amsin, district Faizabad. Raj Nath Singh stated that plot 405 (area 0-14-10 bigha), 408 (area 7-10-12 bigha), 421 (area 7-18-8 bigha) and 424 (area 8-5-16 bigha) were rightly carved out in Confirmed Chak Map but Final Settlement Map was not correctly prepared. The Collector, by order dated 08.07.2005 called for a report, from Tahsildar. Naib Tahsildar submitted his report dated 14.08.2006, mentioning therein that area of all the plots were shown short in Final Settlement Map. Tahsildar, by his letter dated 18.08.2006, sought for some clarification, which has been clarified by Naib Tahsildar through his letter dated 13.09.2006. Then Tahsildar, through his endorsement dated 18.09.2006, forwarded this report. The Collector, by order dated 22.09.2006, directed for registering the case and called for fresh report from Chief Tracer.

4. Chief Tracer submitted his report dated 05.10.2006, mentioning therein that area of plot 424 is short up to the extent of 13 biswa while area of plot 408 was in excess of 13 biswa, in Final Settlement Map. He recommended for correction of map by shifting western demarcation line of plot 408 towards east and thereafter shifting demarcation lines of plot 406, 421 and 424 accordingly. Lakshmi Raj Singh Rathore, Smt. Saroj Rathore and Yajurvendra Singh Rathore (the petitioners) filed their objection dated 28.12.2006 to the aforesaid report, stating that measurements of plots 424, 421 and 408 as in Confirmed Chak Map and Final Settlement Map have not been given in the report as such the report is illegal. During consolidation operation, Raj Nath Singh did not file any objection relating to deficiency of area of plot 424 as such his claim in this respect is barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Chief Tracer did not examine CH Form-23 and 41 as such his report is not reliable. Sector road and Chak road are also affected for which revenue courts have no jurisdiction. The petitioners filed another objection dated 20.09.2007, in which again they have stated that by this report, plots 408, 416, 421, 422, 423 and 424 were affected but its measurements according to Confirmed Chak Map and Final Settlement Map have not been given. Raj Nath Singh has filed an application under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for correction of Final Settlement Map, which was dismissed by order dated 26.04..2005 as such fresh application for same relief is barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as well as res-judicata. Although Sector road, Chak road and various plots were affected but all the affected persons have not been given any notice.

5. Chief Revenue Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 29.09.2007, held that in Final Settlement Map area of plot 408 was found in excess while area of plot 424 was found short to the extent of 13 biswa. As such by shifting demarcation lines of plots 408 etc. map can be corrected without causing injury to any person. On these findings, he directed for correction of map according to report dated 05.10.2006. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1613) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 31.08.2015 held that Chief Tracer, in his report dated 05.10.2006 fou