The Supreme Court has reiterated that higher courts should avoid remanding matters for fresh consideration when it is not essential, observing such directions only prolong litigation instead of resolving it. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan made the remarks while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had remanded a dispute back to authorities regarding correction of a revenue map.
The case involved an application seeking correction of a village revenue map under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which outlines the collector’s duty to maintain a map and field book for each village and update it annually or as prescribed. The bench observed that the High Court proceeded under an incorrect premise and interpretation of this provision, which “could have generated unnecessary further litigation.”
The court noted a shift in approach over time regarding remand orders. “We may also add that earlier view by this court was that in case there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed,” the bench observed, stressing, “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.”
The judges pointed out that the issue of map correction had already attained finality when an appeal by the private respondents against the collector’s order was dismissed on September 4, 2001. After purchasing the land, the respondents’ attempt to seek correction again could not be permitted after a gap of over 17 years, the bench held.
It concluded that this was not a case where an error existed in the revenue record warranting correction under Section 30 of the Code.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s remand order.
