Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Chhote Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6 & 7 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed notice to respondents no.4 & 5 is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reason that these respondents even after appearance would not be in position to dispute the facts of the case and this process would delay the disposal of the present petition.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad (now Ayodhya). The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.
4. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that an application under Section 28 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the 'Act of 1901) was preferred by the petitioner for correction of map. This application was preferred in relation to Gata No./601 area 611 hec. (old No.239 M. area 0.033 hec., 455 M. area 0.74 hec. and 460 M./1 area 0.504
The Collector has a statutory duty to correct errors in revenue records, including maps, without discretion to refuse corrections based on administrative manuals.
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 lit....
The court emphasized that map correction applications must adhere to proper provisions; specifically, errors in allotment should be addressed under Sections 33/39 rather than Section 28 of the Act.
A petitioner must demonstrate locus standi and personal interest in the matter to maintain a petition regarding land records, especially when the land is vested in a public authority.
The court emphasized the necessity for accurate land measurements and the precedence of khatauni over khasra in property disputes.
The principle of res judicata does not preclude a subsequent application for correction of land records under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The court affirmed the Chief Revenue Officer's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, ruling that remanding for fresh adjudication was an abuse of process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
