Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1405
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.1681 of 2024)
SUVEJ SINGH … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
RAM NARESH AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved
1 2
against the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High Court .
The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 25.04.2023
3
passed by the respondent No.5 and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed
4
by respondent No.4 . Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.12.09
16:08:38 IST
Reason:
1
Writ C No.28878 of 2023
2
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
4
Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
Page 1 of 11
aside the aforesaid orders had remanded the case to the respondent No.4
for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case, as available on record, are that
an application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector
seeking correction of map for Plot No.22. The same was dismissed vide
order dated 27.05.1998. It was on the basis of a Commission’s Report
available in the file showing that the appellant was in possession of Plot
No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant was in possession of Plot
Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private respondents were in possession
of Plot No.22/3.
3.1 The aforesaid order was challenged by the private
respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The
same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2001.
4. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a
fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
5
Code, 2006 . The prayer was for correction of the revenue map. The
aforesaid application was dismissed by the respondent No.4 vide order
dated 15.01.2020 while taking into consideration the fact that an earlier
effort made by the private respondents for the same relief had been
5
For short “ the Code”
Page 2 of 11
negatived. The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents
before the respondent No.5, who vide order dated 25.04.2023 upheld the
order passed by the respondent No.4 as there was no good reason to
reopen the issue settled long back. Against the aforesaid orders passed
by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the private respondents filed writ petition
before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed in the
aforesaid writ petition. The High Court set aside the orders passed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4
herein for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing
to all concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt vide
impugned order, the matter has been remanded for consideration afresh
and even thereafter, in case the appellant is aggrieved, he can avail of his
remedies but still, in the case in hand, interference by this Court is required
to stop multiplicity of litigation. It is a case in which possession of the
parties was determined after consolidation. The revenue map was
approved. Initially, the private respondents sought to raise an issue for
correction of revenue map. The application was dismissed on 27.05.1998.
The order was upheld by respondent no.5 on 04.09.2001. No issue was
raised by private respondents any further. The order dated 04.09.2021
attained finality.
Page 3 of 11
5.1 About 17 years later, after ‘the Code’ came into force, the
private respondents again filed an application under Section 30/38 of the
Code for correction of the map. The same was rightly dismissed by the
respondent No.4. The order was upheld by the respondent No.5 in appeal.
However, the High Court, on wrong interpretation of the provisions of the
Code, had set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and
remanded the matter. In fact, the jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Code
could not be invoked as correction was possible only if there were any
errors or omissions. That is not the case here. The private respondents
sought to raise the same issue, which had earlier attained finality. It is their
greediness to have opening of their plot on a wider road. The impugned
order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private
respondents submitted that against an order remanding the case for fresh
consideration, this Court generally does not interfere. In support,
reference was made to a judgment of this Court in
Satyadhyan Ghosal
6
. He further submitted
and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another
that the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside
the orders passed by the authorities below. Section 30 of the Code clearly
provides that the Collector shall maintain the map and the field book and
6
AIR 1960 SC 941
Page 4 of 11
such an exercise has to be carried out annually. Hence, the argument
raised by the appellant that the matter could not be relooked is contrary
to the spirit of Section 30 of the Code. The principle of res judicata may
not be applicable as was applied by the lower authorities. The High Court
vide impugned order has corrected that error. Even if the issue is decided
against the appellant after remand, he will have opportunity to avail his
appropriate remedies. The impugned order does not call for interference
by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant materials on record.
8. The undisputed facts on record are that after the ownership
and possession of the plots owned by the appellant and the private
respondents were settled, the private respondents moved an application
7
under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 seeking
correction of the map pertaining to Plot No.22/3 owned by respondent
No.1. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Collector, Pilibhit
vide order dated 27.05.1998. In the aforesaid order, the Collector had
clearly recorded that Commission’s report was available on record in
terms of which the appellant was in possession of plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2,
whereas the private respondents were in possession of plot No.22/3 as
7
For short “ the 1901 Act”
Page 5 of 11
owners. In fact, respondent No.1 - Ram Naresh had purchased the plot
from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of Chandan Mal Jain. The vendors
of the private respondents could have sold only that land which was in
their possession and put the vendee in possession thereof. There was no
cause of action with the private respondents to move application for
correction of map once they had purchased the plot with their eyes wide
open knowing the location thereof. The order also records that a report
was sought from the Regional Naib Tehsildar who had submitted his
report dated 21.08.1997. Nazari map was attached with the report as
document No.27/8. No objection was raised against that. Total area of
Plot No.22 is 0.18 D of which 0.12 D is owned by the appellant and is
registered under his name as Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2. Respondent No.1
had purchased 0.06 D land from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of
Chandan Mal Jain. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector was
challenged by the private respondents before the Commissioner. The
Additional Commissioner (Administration), vide order dated 04.09.2001,
upheld the order passed by the Collector recording that there was no error
requiring correction of the revenue map as prayed by the private
respondents. In fact, the effort of the private respondents was to get a new
location of the plot purchased by respondent no.1, which was outside the
scope of Section 28 of the 1901 Act.
Page 6 of 11
9. There is no dispute that the aforesaid order attained finality.
Meaning thereby, the private respondents were satisfied with the fact that
they did not have any right to get the location of the plot changed, which
was purchased by respondent no.1.
10. More than 17 years later, after the Code was enforced
replacing the 1901 Act, another effort was made by the private
respondents to get the map corrected. An application dated 12.07.2018
filed by the private respondents was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide
order dated 15.01.2020. As is evident from the aforesaid order, again
investigation report was called from Naib Tehsildar who had sent his
report dated 12.11.2018. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant
that the private respondents were making an effort to reopen a settled
issue, was also considered. Again, the respondent No.4, while examining
the issues in detail, came to a definite finding that the private respondents
could not be permitted to raise the issue as the same already stood settled
in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The application was
rejected. Not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent No.4, the
private respondents preferred an appeal. The appeal met the same fate
as the issue once settled could not be permitted to be raised again and
again. The matter was dealt with by the appellate authority in detail.
11. With the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot
purchased by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private
Page 7 of 11
respondents challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities
before the High Court.
12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court
has misdirected itself while dealing with the issues involved. The import of
the Section 30 of the Code was misread and misinterpreted. For ready
reference, Section 30 of the Code is extracted below:
“30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book. –
(1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed,
a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall
cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at such longer
intervals as may be prescribed, all changes in the boundaries
of the village or survey numbers, and shall also cause to be
corrected, any errors or omissions which are, from time to
time, detected in such map or field book (khasra).
(2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the
manner prescribed and revenue records including map and
khasra shall be corrected accordingly.”
13. A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that the Collector is
duty bound to maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book
for each village. Any changes made therein have to be recorded annually
or after such longer intervals as may be prescribed. The second part of
section provides that the Collector shall also cause to correct any errors
or omissions which are detected from time to time in any such map or field
book. Use of word ‘also’ clearly depicts that the second part is in addition
Page 8 of 11
to the first part. It is in continuation of the same. Even otherwise, first part
deals with maintenance of records annually or at such intervals as may
be prescribed and recording the changes therein. It may include change
of ownership on account of sale or purchase of land or of inheritance.
Exchange of land can be another mode. The process of consolidation may
also have effect on the revenue record maintained under Section 30 of
the Code. The second part talks about errors detected and for their
correction. It may be at any time.
14. If the facts of this case are examined, the issue regarding
correction of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed
by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was
dismissed on 04.09.2001. The maps were already final. Respondent no.1
had purchased the land and his vendors could hand over the possession
of the land which they owned and possessed. After purchase, effort made
by the private respondents to get the revenue map corrected had failed.
They could not be permitted to raise the same issue after a gap of more
than 17 years. It was not a case where any error was found in the revenue
record which deserved correction under Section 30 of the Code. Rather,
the effort of the private respondents was to change the location of the plot
purchased by them, which may be more valuable. This does not fall within
the scope of correction as envisaged under Section 30 of the Code.
Page 9 of 11
15. The impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be
legally sustained.
16. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the private
respondents was on the issue that in a case where the matter has been
remanded, this Court does not interfere. In
Satyadhyan Ghosal and
, this Court had opined that an order of remand
Others’ case (supra)
being interlocutory, and the proceedings having not been terminated, this
Court should not interfere. However, the view expressed in the aforesaid
judgment will not detain us from recording that after going into the facts of
the case, we find that the remand of the matter, in the case at hand, was
totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of Section 30 of the Code
which needs correction by this Court. This could have generated
unnecessary further litigation.
17. We may also add that earlier view by this Court was that in
case there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was
to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party
concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed. The
idea is to curtail the litigation and not generate it. Any unnecessary
remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should
be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in
Page 10 of 11
8
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others ; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
9
Sudhir Kumar Singh and others and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State
10
of Madhya Pradesh
18. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
th
DECEMBER 9 , 2025.
8
(1999) 6 SCC 237
9
(2021) 19 SCC 706
10
2024 SCC Online SC 493
Page 11 of 11
2025 INSC 1405
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.1681 of 2024)
SUVEJ SINGH … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
RAM NARESH AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved
1 2
against the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High Court .
The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 25.04.2023
3
passed by the respondent No.5 and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed
4
by respondent No.4 . Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2025.12.09
16:08:38 IST
Reason:
1
Writ C No.28878 of 2023
2
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
4
Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
Page 1 of 11
aside the aforesaid orders had remanded the case to the respondent No.4
for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case, as available on record, are that
an application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector
seeking correction of map for Plot No.22. The same was dismissed vide
order dated 27.05.1998. It was on the basis of a Commission’s Report
available in the file showing that the appellant was in possession of Plot
No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant was in possession of Plot
Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private respondents were in possession
of Plot No.22/3.
3.1 The aforesaid order was challenged by the private
respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The
same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2001.
4. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a
fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
5
Code, 2006 . The prayer was for correction of the revenue map. The
aforesaid application was dismissed by the respondent No.4 vide order
dated 15.01.2020 while taking into consideration the fact that an earlier
effort made by the private respondents for the same relief had been
5
For short “ the Code”
Page 2 of 11
negatived. The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents
before the respondent No.5, who vide order dated 25.04.2023 upheld the
order passed by the respondent No.4 as there was no good reason to
reopen the issue settled long back. Against the aforesaid orders passed
by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the private respondents filed writ petition
before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed in the
aforesaid writ petition. The High Court set aside the orders passed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4
herein for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing
to all concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt vide
impugned order, the matter has been remanded for consideration afresh
and even thereafter, in case the appellant is aggrieved, he can avail of his
remedies but still, in the case in hand, interference by this Court is required
to stop multiplicity of litigation. It is a case in which possession of the
parties was determined after consolidation. The revenue map was
approved. Initially, the private respondents sought to raise an issue for
correction of revenue map. The application was dismissed on 27.05.1998.
The order was upheld by respondent no.5 on 04.09.2001. No issue was
raised by private respondents any further. The order dated 04.09.2021
attained finality.
Page 3 of 11
5.1 About 17 years later, after ‘the Code’ came into force, the
private respondents again filed an application under Section 30/38 of the
Code for correction of the map. The same was rightly dismissed by the
respondent No.4. The order was upheld by the respondent No.5 in appeal.
However, the High Court, on wrong interpretation of the provisions of the
Code, had set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and
remanded the matter. In fact, the jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Code
could not be invoked as correction was possible only if there were any
errors or omissions. That is not the case here. The private respondents
sought to raise the same issue, which had earlier attained finality. It is their
greediness to have opening of their plot on a wider road. The impugned
order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private
respondents submitted that against an order remanding the case for fresh
consideration, this Court generally does not interfere. In support,
reference was made to a judgment of this Court in
Satyadhyan Ghosal
6
. He further submitted
and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another
that the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside
the orders passed by the authorities below. Section 30 of the Code clearly
provides that the Collector shall maintain the map and the field book and
6
AIR 1960 SC 941
Page 4 of 11
such an exercise has to be carried out annually. Hence, the argument
raised by the appellant that the matter could not be relooked is contrary
to the spirit of Section 30 of the Code. The principle of res judicata may
not be applicable as was applied by the lower authorities. The High Court
vide impugned order has corrected that error. Even if the issue is decided
against the appellant after remand, he will have opportunity to avail his
appropriate remedies. The impugned order does not call for interference
by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant materials on record.
8. The undisputed facts on record are that after the ownership
and possession of the plots owned by the appellant and the private
respondents were settled, the private respondents moved an application
7
under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 seeking
correction of the map pertaining to Plot No.22/3 owned by respondent
No.1. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Collector, Pilibhit
vide order dated 27.05.1998. In the aforesaid order, the Collector had
clearly recorded that Commission’s report was available on record in
terms of which the appellant was in possession of plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2,
whereas the private respondents were in possession of plot No.22/3 as
7
For short “ the 1901 Act”
Page 5 of 11
owners. In fact, respondent No.1 - Ram Naresh had purchased the plot
from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of Chandan Mal Jain. The vendors
of the private respondents could have sold only that land which was in
their possession and put the vendee in possession thereof. There was no
cause of action with the private respondents to move application for
correction of map once they had purchased the plot with their eyes wide
open knowing the location thereof. The order also records that a report
was sought from the Regional Naib Tehsildar who had submitted his
report dated 21.08.1997. Nazari map was attached with the report as
document No.27/8. No objection was raised against that. Total area of
Plot No.22 is 0.18 D of which 0.12 D is owned by the appellant and is
registered under his name as Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2. Respondent No.1
had purchased 0.06 D land from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of
Chandan Mal Jain. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector was
challenged by the private respondents before the Commissioner. The
Additional Commissioner (Administration), vide order dated 04.09.2001,
upheld the order passed by the Collector recording that there was no error
requiring correction of the revenue map as prayed by the private
respondents. In fact, the effort of the private respondents was to get a new
location of the plot purchased by respondent no.1, which was outside the
scope of Section 28 of the 1901 Act.
Page 6 of 11
9. There is no dispute that the aforesaid order attained finality.
Meaning thereby, the private respondents were satisfied with the fact that
they did not have any right to get the location of the plot changed, which
was purchased by respondent no.1.
10. More than 17 years later, after the Code was enforced
replacing the 1901 Act, another effort was made by the private
respondents to get the map corrected. An application dated 12.07.2018
filed by the private respondents was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide
order dated 15.01.2020. As is evident from the aforesaid order, again
investigation report was called from Naib Tehsildar who had sent his
report dated 12.11.2018. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant
that the private respondents were making an effort to reopen a settled
issue, was also considered. Again, the respondent No.4, while examining
the issues in detail, came to a definite finding that the private respondents
could not be permitted to raise the issue as the same already stood settled
in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The application was
rejected. Not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent No.4, the
private respondents preferred an appeal. The appeal met the same fate
as the issue once settled could not be permitted to be raised again and
again. The matter was dealt with by the appellate authority in detail.
11. With the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot
purchased by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private
Page 7 of 11
respondents challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities
before the High Court.
12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court
has misdirected itself while dealing with the issues involved. The import of
the Section 30 of the Code was misread and misinterpreted. For ready
reference, Section 30 of the Code is extracted below:
“30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book. –
(1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed,
a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall
cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at such longer
intervals as may be prescribed, all changes in the boundaries
of the village or survey numbers, and shall also cause to be
corrected, any errors or omissions which are, from time to
time, detected in such map or field book (khasra).
(2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the
manner prescribed and revenue records including map and
khasra shall be corrected accordingly.”
13. A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that the Collector is
duty bound to maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book
for each village. Any changes made therein have to be recorded annually
or after such longer intervals as may be prescribed. The second part of
section provides that the Collector shall also cause to correct any errors
or omissions which are detected from time to time in any such map or field
book. Use of word ‘also’ clearly depicts that the second part is in addition
Page 8 of 11
to the first part. It is in continuation of the same. Even otherwise, first part
deals with maintenance of records annually or at such intervals as may
be prescribed and recording the changes therein. It may include change
of ownership on account of sale or purchase of land or of inheritance.
Exchange of land can be another mode. The process of consolidation may
also have effect on the revenue record maintained under Section 30 of
the Code. The second part talks about errors detected and for their
correction. It may be at any time.
14. If the facts of this case are examined, the issue regarding
correction of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed
by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was
dismissed on 04.09.2001. The maps were already final. Respondent no.1
had purchased the land and his vendors could hand over the possession
of the land which they owned and possessed. After purchase, effort made
by the private respondents to get the revenue map corrected had failed.
They could not be permitted to raise the same issue after a gap of more
than 17 years. It was not a case where any error was found in the revenue
record which deserved correction under Section 30 of the Code. Rather,
the effort of the private respondents was to change the location of the plot
purchased by them, which may be more valuable. This does not fall within
the scope of correction as envisaged under Section 30 of the Code.
Page 9 of 11
15. The impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be
legally sustained.
16. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the private
respondents was on the issue that in a case where the matter has been
remanded, this Court does not interfere. In
Satyadhyan Ghosal and
, this Court had opined that an order of remand
Others’ case (supra)
being interlocutory, and the proceedings having not been terminated, this
Court should not interfere. However, the view expressed in the aforesaid
judgment will not detain us from recording that after going into the facts of
the case, we find that the remand of the matter, in the case at hand, was
totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of Section 30 of the Code
which needs correction by this Court. This could have generated
unnecessary further litigation.
17. We may also add that earlier view by this Court was that in
case there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was
to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party
concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed. The
idea is to curtail the litigation and not generate it. Any unnecessary
remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should
be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in
Page 10 of 11
8
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others ; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
9
Sudhir Kumar Singh and others and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State
10
of Madhya Pradesh
18. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
th
DECEMBER 9 , 2025.
8
(1999) 6 SCC 237
9
(2021) 19 SCC 706
10
2024 SCC Online SC 493
Page 11 of 11