JUDGMENT

A.H. Khan, Member (Judicial). - This reference has been made by Sri Sita Ram Pandey, learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, who by his order dated September 9, 1987 has recommended that the order of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur, dated March 9, 1987 be set aside, and application of Ram Sunder for correction of area shown in the map be corrected.

2. The facts of the case arc that Ram Kuber and Ram Sunder have made an application under Section 28 of U.P.L.R. Act before Collector, Sultanpur, on 3-10-1985. They have set out the case that applicant and Jag Narayan were previously bhumidhars of Khasra No. 259/2, area 3 biswa 5 dhurs, that on the death of Jag Narayan, his sons Ram Boh and applicants came in possession, and that from previous no. 259/2, new numbers 259 and 269 were constituted. Further, no. 261, area 2 biswa 5 dhurs was included in applicants chak, plot no. 259 was included in the chak of opposite party, Devi Prasad. Similarly, plot no. 260 was included as property of Goan Sabha. He states that the map of the plots is not correctly made and his area of 2 Biswa and 5 dhurs is shown only as 1 biswa 8 dhurs. Thus, the area is short by 17 dhurs. Against this plot no. 259, area 13 dhurs is shown as 1 biswa 12 dhurs. This plot has 17 dhurs more. Hence the need for correction of map. He further states that opposite party No. 3, Ram Bodh, is out of the country and, hence, has been impleaded as opposite party No. 3.

3. This application was sent for enquiry and report. Lekhpal has prepared a site plan and has proposed changes in line with applicants case. The Tahsildar has forwarded his report on 1-4-1986. The report of Supervisor Kanungo is dated 20-3-1986. Chief Revenue Officer by his order dated 9-3-1987 has dismissed the application of applicant Ram Kuber.

4. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Sunder has filed a revision which has been referred to this Court for acceptance and correction in the map.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record.

6. What then is the scope of proceeding under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act? Its limited to an error or omission of a clerical nature in the instant map? Where the area calculated or extracted from the shape and size of the map is incidentally found less than in the record of rights Khatauni or C.R Form 45 - its open to correction. A view such as this finds ample support from 1973 A.W.C 620, AIR 1972 Alld. 156, 1981 A.L.J. 270 and 1981 R.D. 77.

7. The bearing of its relation with Sections 33/39, L.R. Act is not a lame parallel. Both have concern, exclusive and insistent, with incidental errors that have crept in. Both have objective relation with the records : Sections 33/39, L.R. Act with Khatauni and Section 28 L.R. Act with Khasra and map. Both proceedings will have to do without ground position at the actual spot. A sort of wrestling only with the records. Both proceedings are essentially judicial. The practical implication is that provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 and Civil Procedure Code, 1974 will apply with all vengeance. More, the end result is not final as Section 40-A, Land Revenue Act makes clear in respect to both. The parallel ends here to give way to differences that too have elements of deep quality. Section 33, L.R. Act concerns with khatauni that bears a presumption of correctness, map and khasra even after rectification do not make claim to be correct in contents.

Secondly, and this aspect is paradoxical, Section 33 khatauni, larger in value is correctable by S.D.O., Not at all map and khasra. Their rectification will follow an order by a Court presided over by no less a person than Collector. So that is that.

8. Map correction is not an occasion involving any dispute of tenancy rights or interest : not a matter relating to a boundary or claim of possession or trespass. This is supportable from 1956 R.D 146, 1972 R.D. 176, 1997 R.D. 76, 1973 A.L.J. 824 (H.C.). Th