JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in the case instituted under Section 30 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2006’) for correction of map registered as Case No. 189 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202204040000189 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Krishna Murari), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for correction of map was rejected by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the Case No. 2544 of 2022, Computerized No. C202204000002544 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Krishna Murari And Others) preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of Code, 2006, being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.3.

4. Considering the dispute pertaining to difference between the area of Gata No. 408 recorded as pond in revenue records situated at Village- Jainuddinpur, Perghana- Bidahar, Tehsil- Tanda, District – Ambedkar Nagar and in the map and khatauni i.e. 0.477 hectares and 0.455 hectares respectively, this Court, vide order dated 12.05.2023, protected the interest of the petitioner and directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

5. It would be apt to clarify that area indicated in khatauni of Gata No. 408 is 0.455 hectares and in the revenue map, the same has been indicated as 0.477 hectares and in view of same, the area inadvertently transcribed in the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by this Court be accordingly read.

6. Today, when the case was called out, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, stated that there is a difference between area mentioned in khatauni i.e. 0.455 hectares and the revenue map i.e. 0.477 hectares.

7. It is also not in dispute that on an application for correction of map, the report(s) were called from the concerned revenue official(s) and in response, the report(s) were submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda and as per these reports, the revenue map pertaining to Gata No. 408 area 0.455 hectares mentioned in the khatauni requires correction. The reports are annexed with the present petition as Annexure Nos. 5 & 4, respectively and the contents of these reports were taken note of by the respondent no. 3, as appears from the impugned order dated 05.12.2022. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 that the respondent no. 3 rejected the application after observing that no correction is required on account of the difference of area, in issue, between khatauni and revenue map.

8. The Revisional Authority also, taking note of the area, in issue, rejected the revision of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 06.03.2023 of the Revisional Authority also shows that Revisional Authority failed to take note of the facts mentioned in the report(s) submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda.

9. In the aforesaid background of the case assailing the orders impugned, Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate stated that impugned orders are liable to be interfered by this Court as Section 30 of the Code, 2006 read with Uttar Pradesh Revenue Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’) ought to have been taken note of by the respondent no. 3 while considering the application for correction of map and in the instant case, the respondent no. 3 has considered the provisions of ‘Chakbandi Manual’, which would not apply after promulgation of Code, 2006 and Rules made thereunder.

10. He further submitted the provisions of Code, 2006 and Rules,