Allahabad HC Quashes Revenue Map Correction Between Adjoining Plots That Could Affect Existing House, Orders Fresh Review And Measurement If Needed

The petitioners purchased Gata No. 764 by registered sale deed dated 24 November 1990.

A dispute arose over the boundaries and area of adjoining Gata Nos. 763 and 764, while civil proceedings concerning the property were pending.

On an application by respondent No. 5 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Additional District Magistrate accepted a report stating that Gata No. 763 was deficient and Gata No. 764 had excess area, and ordered correction of the map by order dated 20 July 2004.

The petitioners challenged that order and the revisional order affirming it, contending that the measurement was improper and their objections—including the existence of a house on the disputed portion—had not been properly considered.

The High Court considered whether the authorities had lawfully exercised their limited jurisdiction under Section 28.

Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 concerns maintenance and correction of maps and field-books; proceedings under it are summary and do not finally determine title or possession, which may be adjudicated by the competent court.

Triveni Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and Rajjab Ali v. Additional Commissioner, Faizabad were relied upon for the summary nature of Section 28 proceedings and the availability of an appropriate forum for substantive claims; however, they do not exclude judicial review where the statutory authority relies on a disputed or inadequately examined measurement or fails to consider material objections.

A map correction must remain within the statutory jurisdiction and be based on a fair, reasoned examination of relevant records and objections.

The Court held that the petitioners were not asking it to decide title; the central question was whether the authorities had properly exercised their limited map-correction jurisdiction.

The orders substantially relied on the 4 August 2001 report but did not satisfactorily show that the alleged discrepancy was verified, that the measurement followed the permissible method, or that the petitioners’ objections concerning the disputed portion and existing construction were properly addressed.

Because a Section 28 correction cannot be used to resolve disputed proprietary rights, the orders required reconsideration on the relevant records and, if necessary, a fresh measurement, without prejudice to the pending civil proceedings.

The order dated 20 July 2004 and the revisional order dated 3 July 2006 were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 28, after notice and hearing, examination of the relevant records, and—if necessary—a fresh measurement by a competent officer.

The authority was directed to address the petitioners’ objections by a reasoned order, refrain from deciding title or ownership, and endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six months of production of a certified copy of the judgment.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the parties’ competing claims; there was no order as to costs.