A petitioner cannot claim map correction or compensation where unauthorized development caused the nala’s altered course.

The petitioner owned land bearing Khasra Nos. 231/1, 519/1, 519/6 and 520/1. Khasra No. 518, measuring 0.202 hectare, was recorded as government land, on which a nala was shown in the revenue records.

In 2004, the petitioner sought correction of the revenue map, asserting that heavy rainfall had naturally altered the nala’s course and caused it to flow over approximately 0.150 hectare of his land in Khasra No. 519. He requested allotment of an equivalent area from Khasra No. 518 or, alternatively, compensation for the land allegedly lost to the nala.

The Sub-Divisional Officer submitted a report stating that the nala had naturally changed its course and proposed correction of the revenue map in the petitioner’s favour.

However, the Collector rejected the claim on 22 December 2015, finding, inter alia, that the petitioner had developed a colony over Khasra Nos. 519 and 520 without an approved layout and without basic amenities, including drainage. The Board of Revenue declined to interfere with the Collector’s decision.

The petitioner consequently challenged the orders before the High Court and sought map correction, restoration of land, or compensation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of the revenue map and allotment of approximately 0.150 hectare from Khasra No. 518 on the basis that the nala had naturally changed its course onto his land?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the alleged loss of 0.150 hectare of land allegedly occupied by the nala?

Whether the Collector and Board of Revenue erred in rejecting the petitioner’s claim after considering the petitioner’s unauthorised colony development and the absence of drainage and other basic amenities?

The Court applied the principle that discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction is unavailable where the petitioner has failed to disclose material facts and the impugned administrative orders are supported by relevant factual findings.

It further applied the principle that a claimant cannot obtain equitable or consequential relief where the alleged injury may have resulted from the claimant’s own unauthorised development or failure to provide necessary drainage infrastructure.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Chunnilal Brahman v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 3745 of 2025, concerning compensation, but did not find it applicable on the facts of the present case.

No specific statutory provision or binding precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

Although the Sub-Divisional Officer’s report supported the petitioner’s assertion that the nala had naturally changed its course, the Court found that the report had been prepared without the petitioner disclosing that he had developed a colony over 0.405 hectare of Khasra No. 519 and had divided and sold the land into plots.

The Collector’s findings that the colony lacked an approved layout and basic facilities, particularly drainage, provided a rational basis to conclude that the change in the nala’s course could have resulted from the petitioner’s development activities rather than from a purely natural event.

The petitioner had not challenged or even disclosed these material findings in the writ petition.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with complete disclosure and that the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities did not warrant interference.

Since the petitioner failed to establish an independent entitlement to the land or compensation, his alternative claim also failed.

The Court found that the petitioner’s unauthorised colony development and failure to provide drainage could not be ignored and that the Collector and Board of Revenue had rightly rejected his claim.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.