Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12778 of 2022

Petitioner :- Noor Hasan Alias Bole And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State

respondents.

By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing

of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

18.11.2021 whereby revision filed by opposite party

seeking fixation of boundaries upon his plot has come to be

allowed and the authority below has been directed to

proceed in accordance with law for demarcation of

boundaries under Section 24(1) of U.P. Revenue Code,

2006.

The main plank of the argument advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order is that

contesting respondent was not justified in Plot No. 170/2

area 0.319 hectares to be measured and demarcation of

boundaries thereof on the basis of decree of partition suit

amongst co-sharers as according to him any fixation of

boundary has to be done on the basis of present survey

map which has been referred to under sub section 1 of

Section 4 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

justifies the order impugned for the reasoned assigned

therein.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their

arguments raised across the bar and having gone through

the pleadings raised in the writ petition, more especially,

objection filed by the petitioner to the application of

respondent no. 6 moved under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue

Code, 2006 as I find that though much emphasis has been

laid upon exercise of power under Sub Section 1 of Section

4 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only on the basis of

existing survey map but no where it has been submitted

nor, there is any whisper in the entire writ petition as to

what is status of survey map of the village. From the order

passed by Sub Divisional Officer which has been set aside

by the Board of Revenue it clearly transpires that when the

consolidation operations intervened in the village there

was no division of holding of the suit land and there was

only one plot no. 170. However, subsequently the said plot

got divided amongst co-sharers and petitioners are

subsequent purchaser of Plot No. 170/2 area 0.319 hectare

from on the cosharer

For better appraisal of the argument of learned counsel for

the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce Section 24(1) of

the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which runs as under:

"Dispute regarding boundaries:(1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may,

on his own motion or on an application made in this behalf by a person

interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any dispute regarding

boundaries on the basis of existing survey maps or, where they have

been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on the basis of such maps, but if

this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual

possession"

Upon bare reading of the provisions as contained under

Section 24(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it clearly

transpires that boundary dispute is addressed upon three

ways. Boundary can be fixed of plot upon application which

has been moved under Section 24(1) on the basis of

existing survey map or where consolidation map is

prepared after consolidation proceedings have been drawn

so upon such map or on the basis of physical possession on

spot. Since there is no survey map of the village existing,

nor it has been so discussed in the order of Sub Divisional

Magistrate, I am convinced that this argument cannot hold

water. In so far as consolidation map is concerned, since it

is admitted that partition proceeding took place after

consol