The Supreme Court has held that settled issues regarding revenue map corrections cannot be reopened after decades under the guise of “correction of errors” under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had remanded a matter for fresh consideration, ruling that “unnecessary remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should be avoided.”
Summary of the Case
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Suvej Singh, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dated September 21, 2023. The High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, who had rejected the private respondents’ application for correction of a revenue map. The revenue authorities had dismissed the application on the ground that the issue had already been settled in earlier proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had “misdirected itself” and misinterpreted Section 30 of the Code, allowing the private respondents to reopen a matter settled 17 years prior.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute pertains to the correction of the map for Plot No. 22. The facts, as recorded in the judgment, reveal that the private respondents had filed an application before the Collector seeking correction of the map for Plot No. 22/3. This application was dismissed on May 27, 1998, based on a Commission’s Report which established that the appellant was in possession of Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2, while the private respondents held Plot No. 22/3. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on September 4, 2001.
Approximately 17 years later, following the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, the private respondents filed a fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Code seeking the same relief—correction of the revenue map.
The Additional Collector (Judicial), Pilibhit (Respondent No. 4) dismissed this fresh application on January 15, 2020, noting that the earlier effort for the same relief had been negatived. This order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) (Respondent No. 5) on April 25, 2023. However, the High Court, in a writ petition, set aside these orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant (Suvej Singh) argued that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted as the order dated September 4, 2001, had attained finality. It was submitted that the private respondents were attempting to reopen a settled issue “greediness to have opening of their plot on a wider road.” The appellant contended that Section 30 of the Code applies only to “errors or omissions,” which did not exist in this case.
On the other hand, the counsel for the private respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another (AIR 1960 SC 941), arguing that the Court generally does not interfere with remand orders. They contended that Section 30 mandates the Collector to maintain maps annually, implying that the matter could be relooked at, and the principle of res judicata should not strictly apply.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which deals with the “Maintenance of Map and Field Book.” The Court observed that while the first part of the section deals with recording changes annually (due to sale, inheritance, etc.), the second part deals with correcting detected errors.
On the Scope of Section 30: The Bench clarified:
“The second part talks about errors detected and for their correction. It may be at any time… 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.”
On the Attempt to Reopen Settled Issues: The Court noted that the private respondents’ vendor could only sell the land they possessed. The Court observed:
“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 Court further held that the private respondents could not be permitted to raise the same issue after a gap of more than 17 years, stating that the High Court “misread and misinterpreted” the import of Section 30.
On Unnecessary Remand: Addressing the respondents’ argument regarding non-interference in remand orders, the Court distinguished the present case from Satyadhyan Ghosal. The Bench emphasized that the remand was based on a “wrong premise” and would only generate unnecessary litigation.
The Court cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, observing:
“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.”
Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated September 21, 2023, thereby restoring the orders of the revenue authorities which had dismissed the application for map correction.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors.
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1405
- Appeal No: Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1681 of 2024
