Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Kaushal Pati – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land map correction application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on legal grounds for map correction. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on procedures under land revenue act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. disposal of writ petition with directions for further proceedings. (Para 13) |
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 entir
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.
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 Collector has a statutory duty to correct errors in revenue records, including maps, without discretion to refuse corrections based on administrative manuals.
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.
Consolidation Authorities are legally obligated to implement judicial orders from consolidation courts, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty.
The court clarified that applications for correction of consolidation schemes must be filed within a reasonable time, typically three years, and that significant delays render such applications inval....
A decision made without considering all relevant reports and providing opportunity for objection can undermine fairness and necessitate judicial intervention.
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
