Bans Bahadur Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Land Revenue And 8 Ors.

A.F.R.
Neutral Citation No. -
2026:AHC-LKO:76121
Reserved on: 30.09.2026
Delivered on: 23.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1004949 of 2006
Bans Bahadur Singh and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Land Revenue and 8 Ors.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.k.banerjee, Pradeep Sinha, Radhey
Shyam Tiwari, Sushil Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Amit Kumar Singh, B.k.
Singh, Kaushal Misra
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 & 8 and Sri
L.M. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for respondent(s) – State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer(s):
“i. issue a writ, erier or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the judgement and order impugned
dated 3.7.2006 passed by the respondent no.2, Additional
Commissioner (Hayayik) Faizabad Kandal, Faizabad in
Revision No.2383-Sultanpur u/8 219 Land Revenue Act,
1901 parties being Bana Bahadur Singh & another Vs.
Samar Bahadur Singh and others, contained in Annexure
No.1 to this writ petition by summoning the records.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and ornier
dated 20.7.2004 passed by the respondent no.3, Additional
District Magistrate (Administration Uper Collector,
Sultanpur in Suit No.654/716/903/1016/ under Section 28
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 parties being Samar
Bahadur Singh Vs. State, contained in Annexure No.2 by
summoning records.
iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamıs commanding the respondent no.3 and 4 to make

2
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
a survey in accordance with the Provisions of U.P. Land
Revenue Act 1901 by measuring the Gata No.764 in a
straight manner from North to South instead of measuring
in a triangular manner from north to south. Consequently,
enhancing the land of Gata No.763 of the respondent no.5,
by 4 Dhairs than the required land of the respondent no.5.
iv. Any other writ, order or direction under interim
Mandamus may kindly be passed in consequence of the
case.
v. The cost of the proceedings may kindly be awarded
in favour of the Writ Petitioners.”
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners purchased land
bearing Gata No. 764, situated at Village Nara, Gram and Post Adhanpur,
Tehsil Musafir Khana, District Sultanpur from Shri Faiz Bux by means of
a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1990. After purchase of the aforesaid
land, the petitioners came to know that respondent no.9, namely, Shri
Surendra Pratap Singh had illegally constructed a house over the land
belonging to the petitioners.
4. Consequently, the petitioners instituted Original Suit No. 693 of
1996 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Sultanpur,
seeking demolition/removal of the house bearing House No. 762, which
had allegedly been illegally constructed by respondent no. 9 over the
petitioners' land. The said suit is still pending. During the pendency of the
aforesaid suit, the petitioners purchased the said house from respondent
no.9.
5. Respondent no.6, namely, Mohd. Riyaz, who was a tenant of
respondent no.9, Shri Surendra Pratap Singh and was occupying half
portion of the aforesaid house bearing No.762-B, instituted Original Suit
No. 1483 of 1997, which is also pending consideration.
6. It is mentioned that respondent no.6, namely, Mohd. Riyaz,
respondent no.5, namely, Samar Bahadur Singh, respondent no.7, namely,
Ram Sumiran, and respondent no.8, namely, Sharda Prasad, were owners
of different portions of land bearing Gata No. 763 and had been
intimidating the petitioners and attempting to encroach upon the
petitioners' land.

3
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
7. In order to protect their rights and possession over the disputed
land, the petitioners instituted Suit No.1637 of 1997, in which the learned
trial court passed an interim order dated 18.12.1997 restraining the parties
from raising any construction over the land in dispute. Thereafter, on an
application moved by the petitioners, learned District Judge, Sultanpur,
vide order dated 10.05.2002, directed that the aforesaid cases be heard by
the same court.
8. Subsequently, respondent no.6, namely, Mohd. Riyaz sold his land
comprised in Gata No. 763 in favour of respondent no.5, namely, Shri
Samar Bahadur Singh. Thereafter, respondent no.5, namely, Samar
Bahadur Singh instituted proceedings bearing Case No.
654/716/903/1016 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before
the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Upper
Collector, Sultanpur, alleging that the area of land comprised in Gata No.
763 had been shown less, whereas the area of Gata No.764 had been
shown more and seeking correction thereof.
9. In the aforesaid proceedings respondent no.3, namely, Additional
District Magistrate (Administration), Sultanpur, proceeded on the basis of
the report dated 04.08.2001 submitted by the Mukhya Anurakshak,
Chakbandi, according to which the area of Gata No.764 had been shown
in excess and the area of Gata No.763 had been shown less. Respondent
no.3 came to the conclusion that the alleged deficiency in Gata No. 763
could be compensated from the alleged excess area of Gata No.764 and
accordingly confirmed the report of the Mukhya Anurakshak, Chakbandi,
District Sultanpur, by order dated 20.07.2004.
10. Respondent no.5, namely, Samar Bahadur Singh had also applied
for correction of the map relating to Gata No.763 before the Additional
District Magistrate (Administration), Sultanpur. In the said proceedings,
the petitioners raised an objection with respect to an area measuring
approximately 4 Biswa 1 Dhur in Gata No.764 and specifically pointed
out that a pakka house had already been constructed over the alleged
excess land sought to be transferred from Gata No.764 to Gata No. 763.

4
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
However, respondent no.3, in a hurried manner, confirmed the report of
respondent no.4 without properly considering the fact that the dispute
relating to the land was already pending adjudication before the
competent Civil Court.
11. The proceedings initiated for correction of the area and map ought
not to have been entertained in the manner in which they were proceeded
with, particularly when the dispute involved the identity, possession and
title over the land comprised in Gata Nos.763 and 764. Respondent no.4,
without properly determining the existing boundaries and without
following the prescribed procedure, wrongly measured the land and
deducted a portion thereof from Gata No.764 for inclusion in Gata
No.763.
12. In the litigation already pending before the Civil Court, the
question relating to the title and rights of the petitioners over the land
comprised in Gata No.764 is directly involved and is yet to be adjudicated
after the parties adduce their respective evidence. Despite the pendency of
the civil proceedings concerning the same property and substantially
overlapping questions, the respondents proceeded with the revenue
proceedings, thereby giving rise to multiplicity of proceedings involving
substantially the same facts, issues and parties.
13. The correction made in the map relating to Gata No.764 is contrary
to the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 28 of the
said Act deals with the maintenance of maps and field-books and requires
correction of errors in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The
provisions relating to reporting and recording of succession or transfer are
contained in Sections 34 and 35 of the Act. The petitioners had duly
reported the transfer of the immovable property in question before the
concerned Tahsildar of the Tahsil in which the disputed land is situated
and the said transfer was accordingly registered by the competent revenue
authority.

5
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
14. Respondent no.2 while exercising powers under the provisions of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a
dispute involving a substantial question of title. Further, disputes relating
to boundaries are required to be determined with reference to the existing
survey map and, where such determination is not possible, on the basis of
actual possession. In the present case, respondents no.2 and 3, instead of
following the prescribed procedure, proceeded to treat a portion of the
land comprised in Gata No.764 as excess land and directed its inclusion
in Gata No.763, thereby seriously prejudicing the rights and interest of
the petitioners.
15. The presumption attached to revenue entries under Section 57 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 does not take away the right of a person
to establish his title or interest in the land before the competent Civil
Court. The revenue proceedings, therefore, could not have been utilized
for finally determining the petitioners' title or for adversely altering their
rights over Gata No.764, particularly when the matter was already
pending before the Civil Court.
16. While conducting the measurement of Gata Nos.763 and 764,
respondent no.4, instead of taking the measurement in a straight and
proper manner, adopted a triangular method of measurement, as depicted
in the map filed along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 10. By
adopting such a method, a substantial portion of the land extending from
the road was allegedly included in Gata No.763 by taking out the
maximum possible area from Gata No.764, thereby facilitating the
interest of the owner of Gata No.763.
17. Respondent no.4, Mukhya Anurakshak, Sultanpur, in collusion with
respondent no.5, namely, Samar Bahadur Singh, deliberately measured
the land in the aforesaid manner so as to show that the house of the
petitioners situated over Gata No.764 fell within Gata No.763. The object
of such measurement was to create a basis for depriving the petitioners of
their house and property and to facilitate the claim of respondent no.5
over the disputed land.

6
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
18. There has been some delay in filing the present writ petition on
account of the petitioners' efforts in collecting the relevant papers and
arranging the necessary funds for approaching this Hon'ble Court. The
entire action and conduct of respondent no.4 are arbitrary, high-handed,
illegal and unlawful and are contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this
Court.
19. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2004 passed by respondent
no.3 and the revisional judgment and order dated 03.07.2006 passed by
respondent no.2 are legally unsustainable, having been passed in excess
of jurisdiction and without properly appreciating the nature of the dispute
between the parties. The proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 could not have been utilized for adjudicating or
indirectly determining the substantive rights, title and possession of the
parties over Gata Nos.763 and 764, particularly when the same property
was already the subject matter of civil litigation.
20. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the registered
purchasers of Gata No.764 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated
24.11.1990. Their rights and interest in the property could not have been
adversely affected merely on the basis of an alleged deficiency in the area
of adjoining Gata No.763. Any correction in the revenue map or field-
book could be undertaken only in accordance with the statutory procedure
and upon a proper determination of the factual position and not by
mechanically transferring the alleged deficiency of one plot to the alleged
excess of another.
21. Learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings proceeded on
the assumption that the alleged deficiency in Gata No.763 could
automatically be made good from Gata No.764. Such an approach is
fundamentally erroneous. The revenue authorities were required to first
establish, by a lawful survey and measurement, the actual boundaries and

7
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
dimensions of both plots. Unless the alleged error in the original map or
record was conclusively established in accordance with law, no portion of
the petitioners' land could have been deducted merely to compensate the
alleged deficiency of the adjoining plot.
22. It is urged that the report dated 04.08.2001 submitted by the
Mukhya Anurakshak, Chakbandi, was accepted by respondent no.3
without undertaking an independent and effective examination of the
objections raised by the petitioners. The impugned order dated
20.07.2004 is, thus, founded substantially upon the said report and does
not disclose any cogent consideration of the petitioners' specific objection
that the alleged excess area of Gata No.764 included land over which a
pakka house was already standing and that the dispute concerning the
property was pending before the competent Civil Court.
23. Learned counsel further submits that the existence of the pending
civil proceedings was a material circumstance which could not have been
ignored. The petitioners had already instituted proceedings before the
competent Civil Court concerning their rights over the disputed property
and the civil proceedings were pending adjudication. The revenue
authorities, while exercising limited jurisdiction under the Land Revenue
Act, could not have undertaken an exercise which had the effect of
prejudicially determining the petitioners' proprietary rights or altering the
identity and extent of the property claimed by them.
24. It is contended that the impugned orders have the effect of
deciding, indirectly, a substantial question of title between the parties.
Such a question could only be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court
upon the parties being afforded full opportunity to lead evidence. The
revenue authorities could not, under the guise of correction of map or
area, determine that a portion of Gata No.764 actually belonged to Gata
No.763, particularly when the identity, possession and title of the disputed
land were themselves matters of controversy before the Civil Court.
25. Learned counsel submits that the manner in which the
measurement was undertaken by respondent no.4 is itself demonstrative

8
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
of the illegality committed in the proceedings. Instead of determining the
boundaries by adopting a proper and lawful method of measurement,
respondent no.4 allegedly adopted a triangular method, thereby including
a substantial portion extending towards the road within Gata No.763 and
correspondingly reducing the area of Gata No.764. Such measurement
could not constitute a lawful basis for altering the existing revenue
position or depriving the petitioners of their land.
26. It is further submitted that the petitioners specifically objected to
the proposed adjustment of approximately 4 Biswa 1 Dhur from Gata
No.764 and brought to the notice of the authorities that a constructed
house existed over the disputed portion. The said objection was of vital
significance because any alteration in the map affecting an existing
structure and the possession of the petitioners necessarily required careful
verification at the spot and consideration of the competing claims. The
failure to deal with this material objection vitiates the impugned orders.
27. Learned counsel submits that the revenue authorities have failed to
distinguish between a mere correction of a clerical or arithmetical error in
the revenue record and an alteration which substantially affects the
identity, boundaries, possession and proprietary rights in immovable
property. Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be stretched to
confer jurisdiction upon the revenue authorities to finally adjudicate
disputed title or to take away a portion of land from one tenure-holder and
add it to the holding of another on the basis of a disputed measurement.
28. It is also submitted that the presumption arising from revenue
entries cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title. Revenue records are
primarily maintained for fiscal and administrative purposes and cannot,
by themselves, extinguish or create substantive proprietary rights.
Consequently, when the petitioners' title and rights were already the
subject matter of adjudication before the Civil Court, the revenue
authorities ought to have exercised restraint and could not have passed
orders having the effect of substantially prejudicing the petitioners'
pending claim.

9
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
29. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned revisional order
dated 03.07.2006 also suffers from the same jurisdictional and legal
infirmities. The revisional authority failed to appreciate that the original
order dated 20.07.2004 was based upon an erroneous measurement and
upon a report which had not been properly tested against the objections
and existing factual circumstances. The revisional authority ought to have
examined whether the subordinate authority had acted within the limited
jurisdiction available under the Act and whether the statutory procedure
for correction of the map had actually been followed.
30. It is urged that the impugned orders are also vitiated by non-
application of mind. The material circumstances, namely, the registered
sale deed of the petitioners, the pending civil litigation, the existing
construction over the disputed portion, the specific objections raised by
the petitioners and the disputed manner of measurement, were all relevant
considerations. Failure to consider such material aspects renders the
orders arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
31. Learned counsel submits that the action of the revenue authorities
also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Where the
proposed correction directly affects the petitioners' valuable rights in
immovable property, the objections raised by them were required to be
considered in a meaningful and reasoned manner. A mere formal
opportunity of filing objections cannot satisfy the requirements of natural
justice where the objections touching the very foundation of the proposed
alteration have not been effectively dealt with.
32. It is further submitted that the impugned action is arbitrary and
offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the authorities
have proceeded upon an artificial assumption that the alleged deficiency
in Gata No.763 could be compensated from Gata No.764 without first
establishing the correctness of the existing boundaries and the alleged
error in the revenue record. The State authorities are required to act fairly,
reasonably and in accordance with the statutory procedure, particularly

10
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
when their action has civil consequences affecting valuable rights in
immovable property.
33. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners do not seek
adjudication of the disputed title by this Hon'ble Court in the present writ
petition. Their grievance is confined to the fact that the revenue
authorities, while exercising limited statutory jurisdiction, have
themselves travelled beyond that jurisdiction and have passed orders
which effectively prejudice the petitioners' title, possession and
enjoyment of Gata No.764. Such exercise of jurisdiction is liable to be
interfered with in judicial review.
33. It is lastly submitted that the proper course for the revenue
authorities, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was to undertake
measurement strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and the
authentic survey/map records, after affording due opportunity to all
concerned and without deciding questions of title which are pending
before the competent Civil Court. The petitioners are therefore entitled to
protection against any alteration of their land on the basis of an irregular
or disputed measurement.
34. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 & 8
submitted that the present writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as the
impugned proceedings arise under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901, which is confined to the maintenance and correction of the
revenue map and field-book. The jurisdiction exercised thereunder does
not extend to adjudication of title, ownership or substantive rights in the
property.
35. He submitted that Section 28 casts a statutory duty upon the
Collector to maintain the village map and field-book in accordance with
the revenue record and to correct errors appearing therein. Therefore,
correction of an erroneous map so as to bring it in conformity with the
recorded area and existing revenue records cannot, by itself, be treated as
adjudication of title or transfer of any property.

11
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
36. He submitted that the impugned order merely corrects the
discrepancy in the revenue map and does not confer any title, possession
or proprietary interest upon respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8. Consequently, the
petitioners cannot challenge the order on the assumption that the
proceedings under Section 28 resulted in determination of their title or
dispossession.
37. His next submission is that any dispute relating to title, ownership
or possession is beyond the limited scope of proceedings under Section
28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and can be adjudicated only by the
competent forum in appropriate proceedings. The petitioners, therefore,
cannot convert the present writ petition into proceedings for adjudication
of disputed questions of title or possession.
38. His submission is that the allegation that the impugned map
correction automatically resulted in change of possession is legally
untenable. A correction of the revenue map does not, in the absence of a
specific order or separate lawful proceeding for delivery or alteration of
possession, operate as an order of dispossession.
39. He further submitted that the petitioners' challenge proceeds on a
legally erroneous premise that correction of the map necessarily amounts
to transfer of land from one tenure-holder to another. Such an inference is
impermissible, particularly when the impugned proceedings themselves
do not determine title or direct delivery of possession.
40. He submitted that the supplementary affidavit seeks to introduce a
new case regarding alleged change of possession pursuant to the map-
correction order. Such a plea, having not formed the basis of the original
challenge and being unsupported by any order passed in the proceedings
under Section 28, cannot enlarge the scope of the writ petition at the stage
of final adjudication.
41. His submission is that the existence of any independent dispute
concerning title or possession does not invalidate an otherwise lawful
correction of the revenue map. The remedy of a person claiming an

12
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
independent title or possession lies before the competent civil/revenue
forum and not by seeking adjudication of such disputed questions in
proceedings arising out of Section 28.
42. He submitted that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not intended to determine disputed questions of title on the
basis of conflicting factual assertions, particularly where the impugned
order is confined to correction of a revenue map and does not finally
determine proprietary rights.
43. He next submitted that the competent revenue authorities, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 28, were required only to examine
whether the map contained an error and whether correction thereof was
warranted with reference to the relevant revenue record. The exercise of
such statutory jurisdiction cannot be termed without jurisdiction merely
because the consequential map does not accord with the petitioners'
claim.
44. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any vested
legal right to retain an erroneous depiction in the revenue map merely
because such depiction existed earlier. Revenue authorities are statutorily
empowered and indeed obligated to correct errors in the map so that it
corresponds with the lawful revenue record.
45. His submission is that the impugned orders having been passed
within the statutory jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and the
proceedings under Section 28 not determining title or possession, no
ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out.
The writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed.
46. He lastly submitted that the petitioners' challenge, insofar as it
seeks determination of ownership, possession or competing rights over
Gata Nos.763 and 764, raises issues beyond the permissible scope of the
present proceedings. Such issues, if otherwise maintainable, are required
to be determined in appropriate independent proceedings before the

13
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
competent forum. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon
following judgments:
a) Triveni Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others;
2010(110) RD 297.
b) Rajjab Ali and others Vs. Additional Commissioner Faizabad
and others; Misc. Single No.6414 of 2009 decided on 12.04.2026.
47. Learned Additional CSC for the respondent – State also adopted the
same argument, as has been advanced by learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5, 6 & 8.
48. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on record.
49. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion
of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6
& 8 are being extracted below:
a) Triveni Bahadur Singh (Supra):
“5. This clearly shows that it is not necessary in order
that a report become admissible the statement of the
Commissioner should also be made in the court for the
purpose of proving it. When the petitioner was not found
necessary party for disposal of the application of
respondent no. 3 and nobody was present before the court
to show that he is necessary party, if notices are not issued
to him, it will not affect the merit of the case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was not
given an opportunity for filing the evidence to show his
possession and title on the property in dispute. This
argument will also not affect the order passed by both the
courts on the same analogy that courts have not deemed it
necessary to call him, in the facts and circumstances of the
case. No such case was before the court that petitioners are
in possession of land of plot no. 94. Still an alternative
remedy is available to the petitioner to go before the
appropriate court and press his claim regarding his
possession and ownership of the land of Plot No. 94. These
Proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act are
summary proceedings. There is no illegality, invalidity and
impropriety in the orders passed by both the courts below.”
b) Rajjab Ali and others (Supra):

14
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
“17. Further from the perusal of the record, it is not
undisputed that the petitioners have not pleaded either
before the revisional court or before this Court in respect to
their grievances against the report of Chief Tracer, so the
said plea cannot be raised and argued by learned counsel
for the petitioners at this stage in view of the law laid down
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra
Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC
304, wherein it has been held that a plea, for which no
foundation has been laid before the trial court or Tribunal,
cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The said view
was further reiterated in Gopichand Gupta v. Jain Plastic
Industry, 2002 (5) SCC 274, Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board and Ors. v. J. Venkateswara Rao and Ors.
(2003) 1 SCC 116 and Sahadevan @Sagadevan v. State
2003 (1) SCC 534.
18. Moreover, it is settled law that proceedings under
Section 28 of the Act are within the realm of a summary
proceedings and if anyone is aggrieved by the order passed
therein or the order passed in revision thereto, he has a
remedy of filing a suit before the competent Court. Thus,
the parties litigation under section 28 of the Act, even after
availing the remedy of revision, have an alternative remedy
to get their rights adjudicated by filing suit." (See Chet Ram
and others v. State of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue U.P.
At Lucknow and others 2012 (115) RD 815).”
49. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available
on record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present writ petition
is not one relating merely to the adjudication of title or possession by this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The real question is whether the revenue authorities, while exercising
their limited jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901, could validly alter the existing map and area of Gata Nos. 763 and
764 on the basis of the report dated 04.08.2001, without properly
determining the alleged error by a lawful survey and without effectively
dealing with the specific objections raised by the petitioners.
50. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5, 6 and 8, namely, Triveni Bahadur Singh (supra) and Rajjab Ali
and others (supra) , undoubtedly reiterate the settled proposition that
proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary
in nature and that questions of title and possession may ultimately be
adjudicated before the competent civil court. However, the said
proposition does not mean that every order passed under Section 28 is

15
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
immune from judicial review or that the revenue authorities may, in the
guise of correcting a map, act upon an unverified or disputed
measurement in a manner which materially affects the identity and extent
of land claimed by another party.
51. The facts of Triveni Bahadur Singh (supra) are materially
distinguishable. In that case, the Court was dealing with the grievance of
a person who claimed possession and ownership over the disputed plot
and held that such claim could be agitated before the appropriate court.
The said decision does not lay down that, where a party specifically
challenges the very foundation of the proposed map correction, disputes
the manner of measurement, points out the existence of a constructed
house over the affected portion and places before the revenue authority
the fact of pending civil litigation concerning the same property, the
authority is nevertheless entitled to mechanically accept a report without
recording a proper finding on such objections. Thus, the said judgment
cannot be read as dispensing with the requirement of a lawful, fair and
reasoned exercise of the statutory jurisdiction.
52. Likewise, the decision in the case of Rajjab Ali and others
(supra) does not advance the case of the respondents to the extent sought
to be contended. The observations therein were made in the context of a
plea which had not been raised before the revisional authority and which
was sought to be introduced for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The
principle that a new factual plea, without foundation in the proceedings
before the subordinate authority, ordinarily cannot be permitted to be
raised for the first time in a writ petition, is unexceptionable. However,
the present case stands on a different footing. The petitioners' grievance is
founded upon the objections raised in the proceedings themselves
concerning the disputed measurement, the alleged excess area of Gata
No.764, the existence of construction over the affected portion and the
pendency of civil proceedings concerning the property. The ratio of
Rajjab Ali (supra) , therefore, cannot be applied mechanically to sustain

16
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
an order which is otherwise required to be tested on the touchstone of
statutory procedure, fairness and proper consideration of the objections.
53. It is also significant that the respondents themselves contend that
proceedings under Section 28 are summary proceedings and do not decide
title. If that be so, the revenue authorities were required to confine
themselves strictly to the limited question as to whether there existed a
genuine error in the map or field-book and whether such error could
lawfully be corrected on the basis of reliable survey and revenue records.
They could not, under the guise of such correction, proceed upon a
disputed assumption that the alleged deficiency of Gata No.763
necessarily represented excess land in Gata No.764 and thereafter deduct
a specific portion from the petitioners' plot. Such an exercise becomes
particularly questionable when the affected portion is stated to contain an
existing construction and the identity and rights concerning the property
are already the subject matter of civil proceedings.
54. The impugned order dated 20.07.2004 does not satisfactorily
demonstrate that the aforesaid objections of the petitioners were
examined in their proper perspective. The revisional order dated
03.07.2006 also does not cure the aforesaid infirmity. The authorities
appear to have proceeded substantially on the basis of the report dated
04.08.2001 without undertaking the necessary exercise of determining
whether the alleged discrepancy was in fact an error in the map, whether
the measurement was conducted by adopting the legally permissible
method and whether the proposed correction could validly be made
without prejudicially affecting the existing rights and interests of the
petitioners.
55. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that revenue entries
and map-correction proceedings do not finally confer or extinguish title
and that disputed questions of title are to be adjudicated by the competent
court. Precisely for that reason, the impugned orders cannot be permitted
to operate on the basis of a disputed factual determination which may
substantially affect the identity and enjoyment of the property. The

17
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
limited nature of the jurisdiction under Section 28 requires greater
adherence to the statutory procedure; it does not dilute such requirement.
56. In the circumstances, this Court is not required to record any final
finding as to the title or ownership of either party over the disputed
portion of Gata Nos.763 and 764. Any such determination would also
prejudice the pending civil proceedings. The appropriate course,
therefore, is to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the
competent authority for fresh consideration strictly within the scope of
Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
57. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed .
58. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2004 passed by
respondent no.3, Additional District Magistrate (Administration)/Upper
Collector, Sultanpur, in Case No.654/716/903/1016 under Section 28 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as well as the revisional judgment and
order dated 03.07.2006 passed by respondent no.2, Additional
Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Revision
No.2383-Sultanpur, are hereby quashed .
59. The matter is remanded to the competent revenue authority for
fresh consideration in accordance with law. The authority shall, after
affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties,
examine the relevant revenue records and the original survey/map and
shall, if necessary, cause a fresh measurement of Gata Nos.763 and 764 to
be undertaken in accordance with the prescribed procedure by the
competent officer, after notice to all concerned parties. The objections of
the petitioners, including their objection regarding the alleged
measurement of the disputed portion and the existence of construction
thereon, shall be specifically considered and dealt with by a reasoned
order.
60. It is clarified that the authority, while undertaking the aforesaid
exercise, shall confine itself to the jurisdiction lawfully available under

18
WRIC No. - 1004949 of 2006
Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and shall not adjudicate
upon or record any final finding regarding title or ownership of the
disputed property, particularly where such questions are pending before
the competent Civil Court. The fresh exercise shall also not be treated as
an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the competing
claims of the parties.
61. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5, 6 and 8 shall remain applicable to the extent that they hold that
proceedings under Section 28 are summary in nature and that substantive
questions of title and possession are to be adjudicated by the competent
forum; however, those decisions do not preclude judicial review of an
order passed in excess of the permissible scope of the statutory exercise,
founded upon a disputed or inadequately examined measurement, or
passed without proper consideration of material objections. The present
order is, therefore, confined to correcting the procedural and legal
infirmities noticed above and shall not prejudice either party in the
pending civil proceedings.
62. The competent authority shall endeavour to conclude the fresh
proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to
cooperation of the parties.
63. It is further clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the
ultimate merits of the rival claims and the authority shall take an
independent decision strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of
the material available before it.
64. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Irshad Ali,J.)
October 23, 2026
Adarsh K Singh
Digitally signed by :-
ADARSH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench