TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.5 [Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit] and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by respondent No.4 [Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit]. Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 5.1. About 17 years later, after 'the Code' came into force, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary 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 under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 [For ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional 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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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 Others' case (supra), this Court had opined that an order of remand being inter....