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.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Tarun Gaud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The present petition has been instituted against the order dated 15.01.2020, passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the respondent No.4, it is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated for seeking correction of map only wherein certain discrepancies has been highlighted that Plot no. 22 has been mentioned two times with the fragmented line available in the map which reflects that there are two plots having the same number of 22.

3. The application preferred by the petitioners under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected by the respondent No.3 on the basis of proceedings initiated by the petitioners themselves under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.05.1998 and the same was challenged before the respondent No.4 which culminated into order dated 04.09.2001 dismissal against the petitioner.

4. Having being aggrieved with the order dated 15.01.2020, petitioners preferred the revision before the respondent No.4, under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the same was decided on dated 25.04.2023 by affirming the finding and conclusion derived by the respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed both the orders amongst several other grounds inter alia precisely on the ground that the application under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be dismissed only on the ground of res judicata, for substantiating his argument Sri Bokhari sought the attention of the Court over Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is reproduced herein below:

"Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

Maintenance of Map and Field Book

(1) The collector shall maintain in the manner prescribed a map and a field book (Khasra) for each such village and shall cause to be recorded therein annually or at such larger intervals as may be prescribed all changes in the boundaries of the village or survey numbers and shall also cause to be corrected any errors or omissions which are from time to time detected in such map or field book (Khasra).

(2) The minjumila numbers shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed in the revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly."

6. It is the argument preferred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the map and field book of the village has to be maintained on yearly basis by the Collector himself and as such the changes occurred from the earlier adjudication made over the application under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act preferred by the petitioners has now been sought to be amended/rectified through the application preferred under Section 30 of the Revenue Code, 2006 by the petitioners and as such the sole ground for rejecting the same only on the basis of res judicata is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

7. Per contra, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the writ petition and disputed the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners by way of supporting the orders which impugned the present petition and submitted that on similar set of facts the earlier application preferred under Section 2