JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel appears for respondent no.3 and 4, and Shri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel represents the respondent nos.5 to 10.

2. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioners and one Ashish Das filed an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of their Plot Nos.450 and 452 situate in Village-Sihara Govind Bahar Chungi (Moradabad), Tehsil and District Moradabad. In the Khatauni that is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the area of Plot No.450 is shown as 1.7520 hectares and area of Plot No.452 is shown as 0.4050 hectares. On the aforesaid application, a report was called for by the Sub-Divisional Officer from the Tehsildar Sadar. Though initially a report was submitted on 20.11.2017, it was subsequently cancelled and thereafter another report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 23.09.2019 which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 24.09.2019 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar. It is stated that the respondent no.3, Om Prakash Saini, filed an objection against the report dated 23.09.2019. Om Prakash Saini is stated to be a tenure-holder of Plot No.454/503, which is likely to be affected by the demarcation. The testimony of the Revenue Inspector was recorded on 13.11.2019. Thereafter, the order dated 28.11.2019 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Moradabad accepting the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 23.09.2019, which was forwarded by the Tehsildar, Moradabad on 24.09.2019. Accordingly, it was directed that for affixing the permanent boundary marks, the record be sent to the Tehsildar, Moradabad.

3. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent nos.3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad under Section 207 of the Code, 2006. By the order impugned dated 21.11.2020, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.11.2019. While passing the order dated 21.11.2020, the Additional Commissioner referred to the very same report dated 23.09.2019, which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 24.09.2019, and found that the map of Plot Nos.450 and 452 reflects excess area than the area present on site by 396.25 sq. mts. and 820.28 sq. mts. respectively. It was observed by the Additional Commissioner that in case the petitioners/respondents wish, they can take steps for demarcation after the map is corrected.

4. Thereafter, Revision No.1940 of 2020 was filed before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj by the petitioners. In the impugned order dated 20.09.2021, the Board, it is stated, merely adopted the finding and observation of the Additional Commissioner and, while holding that the demarcation can be done after the correction of the map, dismissed the revision at the stage of admission.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had filed an application for demarcation under Section 24 of the Code, 2006. The Sub-Divisional Officer had correctly directed demarcation to be made, and yet the Additional Commissioner, without actually directing demarcation, observed that the map should be corrected first and after correction of the map, the petitioners can apply for demarcation. The contention, therefore, is that in case the authorities feel that the map is not correctly prepared, then it is for them to initiate steps for correction of the map