Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in the case instituted under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2006’) for correction of map registered as Case No. 189 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202204040000189 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Krishna Murari), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for correction of map was rejected by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the Case No. 2544 of 2022, Computerized No. C202204000002544 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Krishna Murari And Others) preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of Code, 2006, being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3.

4. Considering the dispute pertaining to difference between the area of Gata No. 408 recorded as pond in revenue records situated at VillageJainuddinpur, Perghana- Bidahar, Tehsil- Tanda, District – Ambedkar Nagar and in the map and khatauni i.e. 0.477 hectares and 0.455 hectares respectively, this Court, vide order dated 12.05.2023, protected the interest of the petitioner and directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

5. It would be apt to clarify that area indicated in khatauni of Gata No. 408 is 0.455 hectares and in the revenue map, the same has been indicated as 0.477 hectares and in view of same, the area inadvertently transcribed in the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by this Court be accordingly read.

6. Today, when the case was called out, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, stated that there is a difference between area mentioned in khatauni i.e. 0.455 hectares and the revenue map i.e. 0.477 hectares.

7. It is also not in dispute that on an application for correction of map, the report(s) were called from the concerned revenue official(s) and in response, the report(s) were submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda and as per these reports, the revenue map pertaining to Gata No. 408 area 0.455 hectares mentioned in the khatauni requires correction. The reports are annexed with the present petition as Annexure Nos. 5 & 4, respectively and the contents of these reports were taken note of by the respondent no. 3, as appears from the impugned order dated 05.12.2022. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 that the respondent no. 3 rejected the application after observing that no correction is required on account of the difference of area, in issue, between khatauni and revenue map.

8. The Revisional Authority also, taking note of the area, in issue, rejected the revision of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 06.03.2023 of the Revisional Authority also shows that Revisional Authority failed to take note of the facts mentioned in the report(s) submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda.

9. In the aforesaid background of the case assailing the orders impugned, Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate stated that impugned orders are liable to be interfered by this Court as Section 30 of the Code, 2006 read with U.P. Revenue Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’) ought to have been taken note of by the respondent no. 3 while considering the application for correction of map and in the instant case, the respondent no. 3 has considered the provisions of ‘Chakbandi Manual’, which would not apply after promulgation of Code, 2006 and Rules made thereunder.

10. He further submitted the provisions of Code, 2006 and Rules, 2016 have also not been considered by respondent no. 2 while dealing with the revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.12.2022.

11. Further submitted that the admitted position is that there is a difference between area indicated in the khatauni and the revenue map as such District Magistrate/Collector, being the revenue head of the district, is under obligation to correct the revenue map so as to resolve dispute related to area in revenue record and map.

12. He further submitted that it is the duty of the District Magistrate/Collector to correct the revenue entries and no application for this purpose is required. In the instant case, application for correction of map was preferred by the petitioner on account of the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of Code, 2006, against the petitioner for eviction alleging that the petitioner is an encroacher of the land recorded as pond though the house of the petitioner is situated, as indicated in the revenue map, over abadi land. As such, the petitioner was compelled to prefer the application for correction of map.

13. It is also stated that in case under Section 67 of Code, 2006, during the pendency of the application for correction of map, an order has already been passed as per which execution, if any, would be carried out against the petitioner only after order passed on the application for correction of map and as per the report(s) of Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehildar, Tanda, the correction of map is required in revenue records and the same has been declined by the authorities under the Code, 2006.

14. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents stated that impugned order dated 05.12.2022 and also the order dated 06.03.2023 are basically based upon the provisions of ‘Chakbandi Manual’ particularly para 101 as also that the petitioner was not having any locus to prefer an application for correction of map with regard to land recorded as pond. The difference of area is negligible i.e. less than three biswa accordingly, no correction in map is required as per para 101 of ‘Chakbandi Manual’.

15. But he could not dispute that revenue authorities are under obligation to correct the revenue entries including the entries related to map and in the instant case, there is a difference between area indicated in the 'khatauni' and also in the revenue map.

16. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the record including the orders impugned, as also the instructions dated 15.05.2023, provided by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, placed before this Court, a copy of which is taken on record.

17. The difference between area of Gata No. 408, detailed above, indicated in the revenue map and in the khatauni is undisputed which as per map is 0.477 hectares and as per khatauni is 0.455 hectares. Thus, the issue is that as to whether the Collector concerned has failed to discharge his statutory duties by declining to correct the error or omission in revenue map.

18. From the impugned order dated 05.12.2022, it is apparent that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar has not recorded reasons/findings for rejecting the reports of Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda, whereas according to these reports, the correction of map is required. These reports have not been dealt with by recording reasons.

19. The Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, only taking note of difference in area, in issue, i.e. 0.022 (1.73 biswa) and Para 101 of ‘Chakbandi Manual’ has rejected the report of Naib Tehsildar, Tanda dated 18.01.2022 and also of Tehsildar, Tanda dated 01.12.2021 by saying that reports are not based upon evidence though the facts are otherwise.

20. Para 101 of ‘Chakbandi Manual’ based upon which impugned order has been passed does not say in specific terms that if the area is less than three biswas then the revenue map would not be corrected and this aspect is evident from the language couched in the same and being relevant, the same reads as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

21. The relevant provision in the Code, 2006 is Section 30 which casts a duty upon the Collector. It provides that the Collector shall maintain a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall cause to be recorded therein, 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). This Section reads as under:

“Section 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 minimum number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly.”

22. Other relevant provisions are Section 32 & 38, both these sections also as per language couched relate to correction of revenue record including a map and a field book (khasra). The same are as under:

“Section 32 : (1) Subject to the control of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar, or the Revenue Inspector shall record, in the manner hereinafter provided in this Chapter, all changes in the record of rights (khatauni), the field book (Khasra) and the map that may take place, and all transactions that may affect any of the rights or interests recorded, and correct therein any errors proved to have been made in the records previously prepared: Provided that order for correction in map shall be passed by the Collector.

(2) No application for correction of error under sub-section (1) where the claim is based solely on possession as well as involving intricate question of title shall be maintainable.”

“Section 38 : (1) An application for correction of any error or omission in the map, filed-book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni) shall be made to the Tahsildar in the manner prescribed.

(2) On receiving an application under sub-section (1) or on any error or omission otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary, and refer the case along with his report to the Collector in the case of map correction and the SubDivisional Officer in matter of other correction.

(3) The case shall be decided by the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, after considering any objection filed and evidence produced before him or before the Tahsildar.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector or the SubDivisional Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (3), may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, and the decision of the Commissioner shall, 1 [ subject to the provisions of section 210 ] , be final.

(5) Any forged or manipulated entry in the map, the khasra or the record of rights (khatauni ) may be expunged under this section.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of this Code, the Revenue Inspector may correct any undisputed error or omission in the record of rights (khatauni ) or khasra in such manner and after making such inquiry, as may be prescribed. Explanation. - The power to correct any error or omission under this section shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving question of title.”

23. The procedure for correction of map has been provided in Rules, 2016. Rule 25 and Rule 36, being relevant, the same are being extracted herein-under:

“Rule 25 - map and Field Book [Section 30(1)]. - For every village, the Collector shall cause to be prepared and maintained a Field Book (khasra) in R.C. Form-4 and also a map (showing the boundaries of survey number) wherein the changes referred to in section 30 shall be recorded.

[(1) The Collector will get prepared and maintained a Field Book (khasra) in R.C. Form 4 for each village, and keep a map (showing boundaries of khasra numbers or gata number) wherein the changes referred to in Section 30 shall be recorded.

(2) The Field Book (khasra) for the years before Fasli year 1428 shall be kept in R.C. Form 4 and it shall be maintained and preserved according to Governments Orders and Board Orders issued from time to time.

(3) In the areas where U.R Zamindari Abolition and Land Management Act, 1950 was in force, the Field Books (khasra) of Fasli year 1428 and thereafter shall be kept in R.C. Form 4-A in Computerized(digital) form.

(4) At the end of Fasli Year, Khasra entries will be made unchangeable (be frozen) and the copy of Field Book (khasra) in PDF or any other unchangeable format shall be eternally preserved at State Data Centre at Board level, or at Government Electronic Cloud, like Meghraj etc. one printed copy of the same will be preserved at Tehsil level as record till 12 years.(5) Entries in R.C. Form 4-A will be recorded in computerized (digital) form as per Governments Orders and Board Orders issued from time to time.].”

“Rule 36. Correction of error or omission (Section 38). - (1) Every application for correction of any error or omission in the map, field-book (khasra) or record-of-rights (khatauni) referred to in section 38(1) shall contain the following particulars:-

(a) Name, parentage and address of the applicant.

(b) The document for the correction whereof the application is being made.

(c) Particulars of the land to which the error or omission relates.

(d) The precise nature of the error or omission.

(e) The application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the map, khasra or khatauni to which the alleged error or omission relates.

(2) Proceedings for correction of the map, field book or record-of-rights may be initiated even without any application under sub-rule (1), if the error or omission otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Tahsildar.

(3) If during the preparation of new khatauni , partal, spot verification and local visit or inquiry, the Lekhpal, Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector or any other revenue officer has reasons to believe that any error or omission (including any fake or fraudulent entry but excluding the errors or omissions referred to in the explanation to section 38) has crept in the map, field book or the record of rights, he shall refer the matter to the Tahsildar who shall initiate necessary proceedings under this rule.

(4) In proceedings for correction of errors and omission under this rule, the Tahsildar shall call for a report from the Revenue Inspector or the Lekhpal and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and making summary inquiry, refer the case to the Collector in the case of map correction and to the Sub-Divisional Officer in the case of other correction along with his report within a period of thirty days from the date of registration of the application.

(5) The Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall allow the parties to file objection, if any, against the report of the Tahsildar submitted under sub-rule (4), and then decide the dispute. If the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the map, field book or record of rights contains any error or omission, he shall direct for the correction thereof.

(6) An endeavor shall be made to conclude the proceeding for correction under section 38 within the period of 45 days from the date of receiving the application with the report and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded.

(7) The Revenue Inspector may correct any undisputed error or omission in the Record of Rights (khatauni) or khasra after making such inquiry in the manner contained in the Land Record Manual.”

24. Similar provision i.e. Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now repealed), being relevant to the view of this Court is also extracted herein-under:

"Section 28. Maintenance of map and field-book. - The Collector shall in accordance with rules made under Section 234, maintain a map and fieldbook of each village in his district and shall cause annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribe, to be recorded therein all changes in the boundaries of each village or field and shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book"."

25. This Court, after considering Section 28, quoted above, as also Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”), in the following judgments specifically observed that it is the duty of the Collector to correct any error in the revenue map, field book or the record of rights:

A. In the the judgment passed in the case of Ghafoor Vs. Adl. Commissioner and Ors., reported in, this Court observed as under:

“2. Thus after consolidation operations are over and the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is published it is the Collector who is to maintain the map, field-book etc., and such a map and field-book can be corrected under the Land Revenue Act and under such circumstances the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not go to the extent of rendering the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act nugatory, so far as correction of map prepared during consolidation operations is concerned.

3. Our attention has been drawn to another case Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue 1973 AWR 621 in which it was held that a map prepared by the consolidation authorities is not necessarily final and conclusive and a map incorrectly drawn up cannot be treated as final and conclusive and can be corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act.

4. Looking to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Land Revenue Act, we are in agreement with the view expressed in Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue (supra) and we hold that if a map is subsequently found incorrect and it is not in conformity with the document prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can in suitable cases be corrected subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Collector in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus we are of the view that the law laid down in Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U.P. (supra) is not a good law.

5. Thus the powers of the Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correcting the map in suitable cases are intact notwithstanding the map has been prepared by the consolidation authorities who have adjudicated the rights and title of the parties. In case there is any discrepancy in the map and final document has been prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act provided the right, interest and title of the party which have been finally adjudicated or have become final are not involved.

6. In the present case after notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published, an application was moved by the Petitioner for correction of the map and the Petitioner tendered evidence that the map was not in conformity with the entries which were made in C.H. Form 45. It was obligatory on the authorities to correct the map in case they were satisfied that there was some discrepancy between the map and the entries in C.H. Form 45 and it is on a mistaken view of law that they have refused to grant this relief to the Petitioner.”

B. In the judgment passed in the case of Ali Khan Vs. Ram Prasad and Ors., reported in, this Court observed as under:

“6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to make corrections in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities.

7. If the village had not been denotified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the obvious mistake in the map could have been rectified by moving an application under Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is, however, admitted on all hands that the village had already been denotified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this situation, there was no remedy open to the Appellant for getting the needful correction done. Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides for the preparation of the revenue records after the enforcement of the final consolidation scheme. Section 27 reads:

27. As soon as may be after the final Consolidation Scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village a new map, field book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map as corrected under Section 7, the khasra chakbandi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed be followed in the preparation of the said map and records.

(2) All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved.

(3) After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field-book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) and the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall apply to the maintenance of such map, field book and record of rights, as the case may be.

8. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, after the denotification of the village under Section 52, the Collector has been enjoined to maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 27. The provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act have been made applicable for the maintenance of such map, field book and record of rights.

9. Consequently, the Appellant moved an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for making a correction in the map to bring it in line with the record of rights. The revenue Court, however, took the view that it had no jurisdiction. The same was confirmed even by the appellate authority. The Appellant was, under the circumstances, compelled to file a regular suit in the Civil Court for injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with his possession over the disputed area of plot No. 320 and also for the correction of the map. As stated earlier the trial Court decreed the suit, but the appellate Court took the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

10. It may be pointed out that if the Appellant had remedy under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 49 would bar the suit. But the Appellant had no remedy before the consolidation authorities on account of the denotification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Besides, the title of the parties had already been determined by the consolidation authorities. But while preparing the record, the area shown in the map was not in conformity with the area shown in the annual register. This was an obvious mistake to be rectified. The Appellant tried to get the same rectified by the revenue Court, further failed. He next attempted to get the same relief in the Civil Court, but there also he failed. Thus, he has been running from pillar to post to get an obvious mistake rectified, but of no avail.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited Smt. Rekha Singh v. The State of U.P. (supra). In that case, Justice O.P. Trivedi (as he then was) took the view :

Under Section 28, the Collector is empowered to cause to be recorded annually or of such intervals as may be prescribed by Government all changes in the map regarding boundaries of each village and field. He has also been empowered to correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field book. It is clear that Section 28 does not empower the Collector to make any changes or alterations in the entries of 'khatauni' . He can make changes in the field book or khasra and the map only under specified conditions.

He also found that the power exercised under Section 28 by the Collector is a non-judicial power, which is well settled by a Full Bench of this Court ( Board of Revenue) in Raj Kumar v. Bhagwat Singh, 1956 AWR 202. He further found:

This implies that the power which may be exercised under Section 28 administratively should not adversely affect the rights of any one. The moment a certain error is a disputed one, the Collector cannot obviously decide it u/S. 28 without affecting the rights of the disputants. In conferring power of correcting errors in the field-book and the map under Section 28 in a unilateral manner by a executive order the Legislature clearly did not intend to confer on the Collector power to make correction in the field book and the map in respect of disputed entries. Where there is a disputed error in the map or khasra it is the Civil Court only which is competent to adjudicate upon it. under Section 57 of the Act, all entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act are presumed to be true until the contrary is proved and the entries which are binding on all Revenue Courts can be challenged only before the Civil Court. The presumption of correctness about these entries must hold until the contrary is proved before the Civil Court. It is, therefore, clear from Section 57 of the Act that in the case of a disputed error in the field book and the map or the record of rights prepared in accordance with Chapter IV of the Act the Collector has no power to decide whether there is an error or there is no error and it is the Civil Court alone which can adjudicate upon a disputed error............All disputes regarding the annual registers and records of rights must have been disposed of and decided by the Record Officer under Section 51 of the Act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 41 and after the close of these operations the khasras, khataunis and the maps of these villages became final." In the instant case, in the first instance, the error has crept in only in the map which was not in conformity with the annual register. Therefore, the case in fully covered by Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the mistake could have been rectified. Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would also not stand as a bar inasmuch as the rights and title of the parties had already been decided by the consolidation authorities in respect of the disputed plot. The only dispute was that the map prepared by the consolidation authorities at the close of the consolidation scheme was not in accordance with the record of rights.

12. In Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd. Balwali v. The State of U.P., AIR 1972 All. 158 [LQ/AllHC/1971/128] Justice B. N. Lokur (as he then was) took the view that a map prepared by the consolidation authorities can be corrected by those authorities alone and the revenue authorities cannot resort to Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to make corrections in that map. Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does enable the authorities concerned to correct the size and shape of the plots in the map prepared with the size recorded in the record of rights. Similarly, the shape also would be an error which would come within the purview of Section 42A of the Act and can be corrected by the consolidation authorities.

13. The case is also distinguishable inasmuch as, in the instant case, there had already been a denotification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, there was no question of making an application under Section 42A for the correction of the map and, in this situation, it was open to the Appellant to have got the map corrected by moving an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

14. In Jaggu v. Patan Din 1960 RD 63 the boundaries of chak Nos. 287 and 272 shown by the consolidation authorities in the map prepared by them did not accord with the record of rights prepared by them. Taking advantage of this mistake, the Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff's possession. The Plaintiff, therefore, applied to the Collector concerned for correction of the map after the close of the consolidation operation. The Additional Collector dismissed the Plaintiff's application on the ground that the map had become final and conclusive under Section 28 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and he had no jurisdiction to correct it. The Plaintiff then filed the suit giving rise to the present second appeal. The Defendant raised the plea that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The argument was repelled. Reference was made to Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It contemplates that the entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. Thus, presumption of correctness is only rebuttable. There is no such presumption of correctness with regard to the map. Section 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act also speaks of the rights of tenure holders to land. If the map does not accord with the record of rights, the error could certainly be corrected by the revenue authorities after the close of the consolidation operations.

15. On an analysis of -the relevant provisions of the Act and the cases cited before us, we are satisfied that the mistake could have been rectified by the Revenue Court and the cases cited on behalf of the Appellant in support of the contention that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction are distinguishable.

16. There is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The Revenue Court, which was competent to entertain the application under Section 28, however, erroneously held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 28. The order was confirmed even in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly, by his order dated 2nd March, 1977.

17. It is now well settled that even an erroneous judgment by a competent Court between the parties can operate res-judicata. In Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh 1979 AWC 635 (SC), the Appellant filed a civil suit claiming one fourth share on the ground that he was the fourth son of his father. An objection was raised by the Respondents that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. A preliminary issue was framed and it was held by the Subordinate Judge that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the return of plaint for presentation to the proper revenue Court. When the Appellant filed the suit in the revenue Court, the petition was returned holding that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Thereupon, the Appellant again instituted Suit No. 13 of 1960 in the Court of the Civil Judge. That suit failed throughout on the ground of resjudicata. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the appellants were driven from pillar to post for the redress of their grievances. When they instituted the suit in the Civil Court, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try. When the suit was filed in the revenue Court, the said Court took a contrary view. Where could the Appellant go then The Supreme Court repelled the argument and observed as under :

We do sympathise with the appellant's dilemma but they were wrongly advised to do as they did. Either they ought to have followed the matter in the First Civil suit and insisted upto the end that the suit was triable by a Civil Court, or they would have taken the matter further before the higher authorities and Court from the order of the Revenue Court and persisted that the matter whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties or not was res-judicata, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the decision of the Civil Court. The appellants did neither. It is unfortunate that due to the wrong paths which they followed under wrong advice they have ultimately to fall on the technical ground of res-judicata but there is no way out.

Again, in Upendra Nath Bose v. Lall 1940 AWR (PC) 147 the Privy Council laid down that there would be res-judicata in regard to the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the matter. If the Defendant appears and an issue is raised and decided then the decision on the question of jurisdiction will operate as res-judicata.

Again, in Upendra Nath Bose v. Lall 1940 AWR (PC) 147 the Privy Council laid down that there would be res-judicata in regard to the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the matter. If the Defendant appears and an issue is raised and decided then the decision on the question of jurisdiction will operate as res-judicata. take a contrary view and hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. After all the error in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities is obvious. The area of plot No. 320 shown in the map is not in conformity with the area shown in the record of rights prepared by the consolidation authorities. Such an obvious error has got to be rectified and it will be a sad commentary in judicial proceeding that despite the fact that the obvious mistake is there in the map but the Court is helpless to rectify the same. We, therefore, hold that in view of the finality of the decision of the Revenue Court on the question of jurisdiction, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hold to the contrary and should have decided the appeal on merits”."

C. In the judgment passed in the case of Surji Devi Vs. Additional Commissioner (1st) and Ors., reported in, this Court observed as under:

“10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is clear that the application moved by the petitioner under Section 28 of LR Act read with Section 27(3) of CH Act was for correction of map prepared after the consolidation operation. Provisions of Section 28 of the LR Act and Section 27(3) of the CH Act art as under:

28. Maintenance of map and field-book.-- The Collector shall in accordance with rules made under Section 234, maintain a map and fieldbook of each village in his district and shall cause annually, or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe, to be recorded therein all changes in the boundaries of each village or field and shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book.

27(3) After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field-book and record-of-rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)(and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record-of-rights shall mutatis mutandis apply).

11. A combined reading of aforesaid provisions shows that the Collector is under obligation to maintain the map, field book and record of rights of each village in his district in accordance with the rules made under Section 234. Section 27(3) states that in maintenance of map and field book, the provision as contained in LR Act relating to maintenance and correction of such map, field book and record of rights shall mutatis mutandis apply. Section 28 of the LR Act states that the Collector shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field book maintained by him.

12. It is well-settled that the correction of map cannot be refused on the ground that consolidation operation had already been over. The Collector has power under Section 28 of the LR Act to correct clerical error or omission of the clerical error in the existing map. The proceedings under Section 28 of the LR Act are judicial in nature. The intention of the legislature appears to have prescribed the maintenance of map and its indexes, the field book by observation on the spot. The word used under Section 28 is "shown" and not "proved". Thus, in view of the said legal position, only the previous error shown on the spot are to be corrected in the summary proceeding. In view thereof, it is bounden duty of the Collector to correct any defect in the map, if it is found by him.

13. In the present case, the application was moved by the petitioner on 3.2.1999 for correction of map on the ground that the position of plot i.e. 240 (E) area 12 Decimal has incorrectly been shown in the map prepared after the consolidation operation. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate only on the ground that in absence of the chak map, no correction can be made in the map prepared on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner. The said application has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the copy of the chak map. The view taken by the Additional District Magistrate in rejection of the application moved by the petitioner for correction of map is incorrect in as much as the chak map is the part of the revenue record maintained by the authorities. In the event, the chak map was not filed by the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the Additional District Magistrate to call for the record i.e. chak map and pass an appropriate order after looking to the merits of the application moved by the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate in its order recorded that the basis of correction of final map prepared after the consolidation operation is the Chak map and the same has not been mentioned in the report submitted by the Tehsildar. It further recorded the finding that an effort has been made by the petitioner to get the corrections done by the concealment of the relevant document i.e. chak map. The said findings of Additional District Magistrate are totally perverse and cannot be sustained. In so far as the ground for rejection of application for correction of final map in absence of chak map is concerned, suffice is to say that ground taken by the Additional District Magistrate is technical in nature and the Additional District Magistrate has failed to discharge his duty in not calling for the record himself and pass an appropriate order on the merits of the application moved by the petitioner. In view thereof, the order of Additional District Magistrate dated 15.6.2002 cannot be sustained.

……..

21. As far as the question raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the application moved under Section 28 of the Act by the petitioner for correction of the map after the consolidation operations were over in the village and its notification under Section 52 issued on 10.8.1985 is concerned, it is well-settled that the power and scope of the Collector under Section 28 of the Act to make corrections in the map is confined to the clerical errors in the existing map after observation on the spot. The combined reading of provisions of Section 28 of the LR Act and Section 27(3) of CH Act clearly shows that after the map is prepared and maintained by the Collector. In case, any error is pointed out which is an error shown on the spot, the same can be corrected and the Collector is bound to make necessary corrections in the summary proceedings under section 28 of the Act. The rectification of mistake/corrections can be done at any stage, and in view thereof, the objection of the respondents that the application under Section 28 of LR Act read with Section 27(3) of CH Act for correction of map moved by the petitioner is not maintainable after the consolidation operations are over, is unsustainable.”

D. In the judgment passed in the case of Gaya Prasad and Ors. Vs. Yadunath and Ors. reported in, the Court observed as under:

“13. The counsel for petitioners has stated that since the map had been prepared after the consolidation proceedings, it could not be corrected at all by exercising the powers under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the case of Mohd. Raza and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others, 1973 (8) AWR 621 it has been observed that it is wrong to assume that the map prepared under Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must necessarily be treated as final and conclusive. Later on, relying upon the same judgment in Nanbudda v. Latif Ahmad, 1982 RD 170 it has been further observed in paragraph - 6 thus :-

"It my further be added that even Section 27(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act states about the presumption of correctness subject to contrary being proved. The right of rebuttal must be admissible. Secondly, this presumption applied to 'all entries in the record of rights' only and not for the Shajra. Admittedly, the Shajra is not a record of rights. Section 27(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act itself provides that the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall apply to the maintenance of such map, field-book etc. Under these provisions, any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book, shall be corrected. Thus there is no scope left for the application of bar under Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act."

14. This view expressed by the Board of Revenue is in line with the judgment rendered by this Court by a Division Bench in the case of Ali Khan v. Ram Prasad and another, 1981(1) Alld. Law Journal 271 wherein this Court has considered a similar question raised as to whether after denotification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, correction of errors can be made by moving an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. This Court has observed that the Revenue Court was competent to entertain the application under Section 28 and it had erroneously held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It further observed that if error in the map prepared by the Consolidation Authorities is obvious and the area of the plot in question shown in the map is not in conformity with the area shown in the Record of Rights prepared by the Consolidation Authorities, "Such an obvious error has got to be rectified" and it will be a sad commentary in judicial proceeding that despite the fact that the obvious mistake is there in the map but the Court is helpless to rectify the same.......

"

15. A similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow,: 1978 AWC, 836 (by Hon'ble U.C. Srivastava and Hon'ble K.N. Goyal, JJ.) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed in paragraphs - 3, 4, 5 and 6 as thus:-

"3. Our attention has been drawn to another case Mohammad Raza V. Board of Revenue, 1973 AWR 621 in which it was held that a map prepared by the consolidation authorities is not necessarily final and conclusive and a map incorrectly drawn up cannot be treated as final and conclusive and can be corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act.

4. Looking to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Land Revenue Act, we are in agreement with the view expressed in Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue (supra) and we hold that if a map is subsequently found incorrect and it is not in conformity with the document prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can in suitable cases be corrected subsequent to the publication of the notification under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Collector in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus we are of the view that the law laid down in Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U.P. (supra) is not a good law.

5. Thus the powers of the Collector under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correcting the map in suitable cases are intact notwithstanding the map has been prepared by the consolidation authorities who have adjudicated the rights and title of the parties. In case there is any discrepancy in the map and final document has been prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act provided the right, interest and title of the party which have been final are not involved.

6. In the present case after notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published, an application was moved by the petitioner for correction of the map and the petitioner tendered evidence that the map was not in conformity with the entries which were made in C.H. Form 45. It was obligatory on the authorities to correct the map in case they were satisfied that there was some discrepancy between the map and the entries in C.H. Form 45 and it is on a mistaken view of law that they have refused to grant this relief to the petitioner."

16. A Full Bench of Board of Revenue (Five Members) has also held in Suraj Narain and others v. Bhawani Prasad and others, 1977 RD 234 after noticing the amendments made in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1956 and U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958 and the amendment made by the U.P. Act No. 12 of 1965 that in the case of Ganga Glass Works Pvt. Limited Baliwali v. State of U.P. 1972 (Alld.) AIR 158 the impact of Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not considered and hence, this judgment cannot help in arriving at a correct conclusion in respect to the questions referred to it. The questions referred to the Full Bench aforesaid were as follows :

• Whether the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act empower the Collector to rectify such mistakes occurring during the consolidation operation and noticed after the denotification under Section 52 of the Act
• Whether the word 'Collector' mentioned in Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act includes 'Assistant Collector First Class' also, and.
• Whether the proceedings in such cases are barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act"

17. The Board of Revenue held that after the amendments made in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 27 of itself now empowers the Collector to correct under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act any errors found subsequently in the map and Field Book preferred during the consolidation operation. The proceedings for correction of map under Section 27 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are not barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

18. It is, thus, clear from the law as settled by a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue and by Division Benches of this Court, correction of mistakes apparent in the village map can be made under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act even after the consolidation operations are over and final notification has been issued under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

19. From a perusal of the orders impugned it is evident that the amendment proposed in the map by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by adjustment of lands of three plots in question to bring them in consonance with the verified map and the orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous either on facts or on law.”

E. In the judgment pronounced in the case of Smt. Shyam Raji & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue Lko Thru Chairman & Ors., passed on 20.2.2019 in Misc. Single No. 7638 of 2015, the Court observed as under:

“Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is extracted herein under:-

"28. Maintenance of map and field-book. - The Collector shall in accordance with rules made under Section 234, maintain a map and field-book of each village in his district and shall cause annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribe, to be recorded therein all changes in the boundaries of each village or field and shall correct any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book"."

A perusal of the aforesaid quoted provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act shows that Collector has been cast with the statutory duty to maintain the map and filed book of the villages in his District. He is also cast with another statutory duty of causing annually or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, recording of all changes in the boundaries of each village or filed and correcting any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field book.

As a matter of fact, for making any correction in the map or in the field-book, no application is mandatorily required to be moved. Such correction has to be necessarily made by the Collector where any mistake or discrepancy is noticed by him on an application preferred by a person or if any mistake comes to his knowledge by any other mode or means. If a mistake comes to the notice of the Collector either on any application or even otherwise, he is duty bound to make correction in the map. Tenure holder is not even bound to make any application for effecting corrections in the map, if the same exists.

It is further noticeable that the applicability of the principles of res-judicata as enunciated in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the duty discharged by the Collector under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is very doubtful. While exercising the authority/jurisdiction under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Collector does not decide any issue between the parties. To term the provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as some power or authority or jurisdiction would be a misnomer. In fact, it casts a duty to incorporate correction in the map or the field book, if any such mistake or discrepancy comes to his notice. The provision of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be described to be a remedy available to a person in the traditional sense of the word. As observed above, it is rather a duty to be performed by the Collector mandatorily in terms of the mandate given to him by the Legislature by enacting Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners thus carries weight. The grounds taken by learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for suggesting that the second application dated 6th March, 2013 was barred to principles of res-judicata, are hereby rejected.

Additional Commissioner has thus failed to properly understand the actual purpose of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and mandate given to the Collector by the State Legislature.”

26. Thus, from the above quoted provisions particularly the expression ‘any error or omission’ used in Section 30 of Code, 2006 and Rule 36(5) of Rules, 2016 as also the expression ‘any error proved to have been made in the records previously prepared’ indicated in Section 32 of Code, 2006 and the judgments referred above, it is crystal clear that if the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni ) contains ‘any error or omission’, he shall direct for the correction thereof. The Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, is under obligation to correct ‘any error or omission’ in relation to map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni). As per provisions quoted above, the order of correction of map shall be passed by Collector and in the matter of other correction by Sub-Divisional Officer. Statutory provisions above referred do not say that any error or omission in the map if is of three biswas or less then the Collector can refuse to correct the map.

27. Under Section 30 of Code, 2006, the Collector is required to maintain a map of each village in his district. The importance of the correct maintenance of village maps cannot be over-emphasized as the map is the starting point of the land records of a village and an error in it is likely to render all the records of the village erroneous. It defines the boundaries of the village and also of each field in the village.

28. It also reflects from the aforesaid that revenue records viz. map, field book (khasra) or record of rights (khatauni) can be corrected even after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 by the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be.

29. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that it is the duty of the Collector to correct the map if ‘any error or omission’ is apparent and Code, 2006 or Rules, 2016 do not provide any discretion to the Collector to refuse the said correction based upon the Para 101 of ‘Chakbandi Manual’.

30. As per statutory provisions indicated above particularly in view of Section 38 of Code, 2006, the proceedings regarding the correction of revenue records including the map should be initiated on an application preferred in this regard or on ‘any error or omission’ is otherwise come to the knowledge of Tehsildar concerned. Further, in the statutory provisions, it has not been indicated that who can prefer an application for correction of revenue records including the application for correction of map. Thus, a person having knowledge of discrepancy in revenue records can provide the information in this regard to Tehsildar concerned who shall thereafter make such inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary, and refer the case along with his report to the Collector in the case of map correction and the SubDivisional Officer in matter of other correction.

31. For aforesaid reasons as also taking note of the observations made by this Court in the judgments referred above, this Court is of the view that the application preferred by the petitioner for correction of map was maintainable as he, being a resident of the vicinity, pointed out the error in the revenue map.

32. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar/respondent no. 3, by rejecting the application for correction of map vide order dated 05.12.2022, failed to discharge his statutory duty, which in the present case relates to correction of map in regard to error therein was indicated in the reports submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda and Tehsildar, Tanda and the respondent no. 2, while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 06.03.2023, failed to take note of relevant statutory provisions and being so committed error in law.

33. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.03.2023 and 05.12.2022 (Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the petition) are set aside. The matter is remanded back to Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to decide the matter afresh by passing reasoned and speaking order.

34. While deciding the case, the Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar is expected to take note of statutory provisions according to which it is the duty of the Collector to maintain the revenue records including the map and to correct ‘any error or omission’ therein and proceedings of correction of revenue records including the map may be initiated even without any application if ‘any error or omission’ therein comes to the notice of Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Collector.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.