Limitation / Revenue records — Correction of revenue map — Section 30, Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006 — Earlier proceedings and finality — Remand quashed.
Where a revenue authority and first appellate authority had earlier considered and finally rejected an application for correction of a village map and the parties thereafter acquiesced for many years, a belated fresh application to alter the location of a plot (effectively to obtain a more beneficial frontage) is not a proper case for reopening settled revenue records under Section 30 of the Code. Section 30 obliges the Collector to maintain maps and correct detected errors or omissions, but it does not permit reopening of long-settled determinations merely to secure a more favourable position. Absent a genuine error or omission in the record, remand for fresh consideration was unwarranted; High Court order remanding the matter was set aside; assessment of factual questions (e.g., whether a true error existed or work occurred beyond territorial waters) is normally the domain of the revenue authority, but remand must not be used to generate avoidable litigation.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Finality and relitigation: Where the Collector and appellate revenue authority have adjudicated an application under the predecessor statute and the order has attained finality, a later attempt—after a long lapse of time—to reopen the same factual issue will not be permitted unless there is a real and demonstrable error or omission in the map or field book within the meaning of Section 30.
-
Scope of Section 30: Section 30 requires maintenance and correction of maps and khasra records and is not a provision to be used as a vehicle for re-location of plots to secure commercial advantage; correction jurisdiction is limited to genuine errors or omissions discovered in records.
-
Remand jurisdiction: A remand by a High Court is inappropriate where it is founded on a misreading of statutory scope and risks creating multiplicity of litigation; courts should exercise restraint to prevent unnecessary reopening of long-settled records.
ISSUE — HOLDING — REASONS (concise)
ISSUE
Whether the High Court was right to set aside the revenue orders rejecting the petitioners’ application for correction of the revenue map and remand for fresh consideration under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006.
HOLDING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s remand order and restored finality to the earlier revenue decisions.
REASONS (summary)
• Factual background: The Collector (1998) and the Additional Commissioner (2001) had rejected the private respondents’ effort to alter the map/location of a plot; those orders attained finality. Seventeen years later, after the 2006 Code came into force, petitioners again sought correction under Sections 30/38; revenue authorities dismissed and affirmed the dismissal. The High Court remanded for fresh consideration.
• Statutory construction: Section 30 requires the Collector to maintain maps and correct errors/omissions; it does not authorize reopening of long-settled title/possession disputes to obtain a more favourable location unless a true error/omission is shown. The word “also” in s.30(1) indicates correction is an adjunct to record maintenance, not a gateway for relitigation.
• Finality and misuse: The Court found petitioners were seeking to reopen a settled matter (effectively to get a better frontage/value) rather than seeking correction of a recorded error. Remanding on the impugned basis would generate needless litigation and defeat finality; accordingly the Supreme Court corrected the High Court’s misinterpretation and quashed the remand.
• Principle on remands: While remands are generally not interfered with, where remand is founded on erroneous legal premise and would encourage avoidable litigation, appellate intervention is proper. The Court cited public-interest jurisprudence preferring curtailment of litigation where possible.
