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.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. The present case is arising out of an order dated 22.02.1978 passed by Consolidation Officer whereby an application filed by one, Raj Bahadur Dube, predecessor in interest of petitioners, for correction of map was forwarded to Parganadhikari Gyanpur since in interregnum period a notification under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was published which provides that Consolidation Officer ceased with jurisdiction.

2. Aforesaid application was filed on a premise that land in dispute was abut to road but in the map it was shown to another place. Old number of plot was 175.

3. Said application was decided by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur on 09.03.1984, however, it was rejected on ground that issue involved was not of correction of map but it was of wrong allotment of chak. The order dated 09.03.1984, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinafter:

4. Aforesaid order was challenged at the behest of petitioners by way of filing a revision. During pendency of revision a report was submitted by Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal dated 04.01.2011. Said revision was allowed vide order dated 29.01.2011 and order impugned dated 09.03.1984 was set aside and report submitted by Lekhpal dated 04.01.2011 was confirmed and it was directed that map be corrected accordingly. Relevant part of order dated 29.01.2011 is reproduced hereinafter:

5. Contesting-Respondents being aggrieved by above order, approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 9816 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2011 with liberty to avail alternative remedy and accordingly contesting- respondents filed a revision before Board of Revenue, which remained pending for more than a decade and finally decided vide order dated 25.06.2024, whereby revision filed by contesting-respondents was allowed and order dated 29.01.2011 was set aside and initial order dated 09.03.1984 was confirmed. Relevant part of order dated 25.06.2024 is mentioned hereinafter:

6. Aforesaid order dated 25.06.2024 is impugned in present writ petition.

7. Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, refers the map submitted by Lekhpal during proceedings that plot no. 175 shown before consolidation proceedings was not shown in map prepared after consolidation proceedings. He further refers the order passed by Additional Commissioner, whereby report dated 04.01.2011 submitted by Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal was confirmed that new plot no. 175 ought to have been shown near to plots no. 176 and 171 and correction of map was proposed by Lekhpal in said report. Learned counsel further submits that findings returned by Board of Revenue that order for correction of map cannot be passed under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1901”) and proceedings ought to have been initiated under Sections 33 /39 of Act, 1901 to remove error in annual register, was not correct as it has been shown in the report that it was an error in map, which can only be cured in the proceedings arising out of Section 28 of Act, 1901.

8. Per contra, Sri Abhishek Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Zeeshan Mazhar, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents, submits that Revisional Court has returned a legally sustainable finding that relief sought by petitioners for correction of map cannot be granted in the proceedings arising out of Section 28 of Act, 1901 since it is only with regard to maintenance of map and field book and any error therein, whereas in present case a chak has been allotted in another place, therefore, it is not a correction of map, rather it is a correction in annual register, which is base