Suvej Singh vs Ram Naresh

2025 INSC 1405 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.1681 of 2024)

SUVEJ SINGH … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

RAM NARESH AND ORS. … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved

against the impugned order1 dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High Court 2.

The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 25.04.2023

passed by the respondent No.5 3 and the order dated 15.01.2020 passed

by respondent No.4 4. Vide impugned order, the High Court while setting Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2025.12.09 Writ C No.28878 of 2023 16:08:38 IST Reason: 1

2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 3 Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit 4 Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit

Page 1 of 11 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 possession of Plot

No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant was in possession of Plot

Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private respondents were in possession

of Plot No.22/3.

3.1 The aforesaid order was challenged by the private

respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The

same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2001.

4. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a

fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue

Code, 20065. The prayer was for correction of the revenue map. The

aforesaid application was dismissed by the respondent No.4 vide order

dated 15.01.2020 while taking into consideration the fact that an earlier

effort made by the private respondents for the same relief had been

5 For short “the Code” Page 2 of 11 negatived. The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents

before the respondent No.5, who vide order dated 25.04.2023 upheld the

order passed by the respondent No.4 as there was no good reason to

reopen the issue settled long back. Against the aforesaid orders passed

by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the private respondents filed writ petition

before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed in the

aforesaid writ petition. The High Court set aside the orders passed by

respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4

herein for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing

to all concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no 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.

Page 3 of 11 5.1 About 17 years later, after ‘the Code’ came into force, the

private respondents again filed an application under Section 30/38 of the

Code for correction of the map. The same was rightly dismissed by the

respondent No.4. The order was upheld by the respondent No.5 in appeal.

However, the High Court, on wrong interpretation of the provisions of the

Code, had set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and

remanded the matter. In fact, the jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Code

could not be invoked as correction was possible only if there were any

errors or omissions. That is not the case here. The private respondents

sought to raise the same issue, which had earlier attained finality. It is their

greediness to have opening of their plot on a wider road. The impugned

order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private

respondents submitted that against an order remanding the case for fresh

consideration, this Court generally does not interfere. In support,

reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal

and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another 6. He further submitted

that the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside

the orders passed by the authorities below. Section 30 of the Code clearly

provides that the Collector shall maintain the map and the field book and

6 AIR 1960 SC 941

Page 4 of 11 such an exercise has to be carried out annually. Hence, the argument

raised by the appellant that the matter could not be relooked is contrary

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 7 seeking

correction of the map pertaining to Plot No.22/3 owned by respondent

No.1. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Collector, Pilibhit

vide order dated 27.05.1998. In the aforesaid order, the Collector had

clearly recorded that Commission’s report was available on record in

terms of which the appellant was in possession of plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2,

whereas the private respondents were in possession of plot No.22/3 as

7 For short “the 1901 Act” Page 5 of 11 owners. In fact, respondent No.1 - Ram Naresh had purchased the plot

from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of Chandan Mal Jain. The vendors

of the private respondents could have sold only that land which was in

their possession and put the vendee in possession thereof. 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 order also records that a report

was sought from the Regional Naib Tehsildar who had submitted his

report dated 21.08.1997. Nazari map was attached with the report as

document No.27/8. No objection was raised against that. Total area of

Plot No.22 is 0.18 D of which 0.12 D is owned by the appellant and is

registered under his name as Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2. Respondent No.1

had purchased 0.06 D land from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain, sons of

Chandan Mal Jain. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector was

challenged by the private respondents before the Commissioner. The

Additional 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.

Page 6 of 11

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 was made by the private

respondents to get the map corrected. An application dated 12.07.2018

filed by the private respondents was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide

order dated 15.01.2020. As is evident from the aforesaid order, again

investigation report was called from Naib Tehsildar who had sent his

report dated 12.11.2018. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant

that the private respondents were making an effort to reopen a settled

issue, was also considered. Again, the respondent No.4, while examining

the issues in detail, came to a definite finding that the private respondents

could not be permitted to raise the issue as the same already stood settled

in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The application was

rejected. Not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent No.4, the

private respondents preferred an appeal. The appeal met the same fate

as the issue once settled could not be permitted to be raised again and

again. The matter was dealt with by the appellate authority in detail.

11. With the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot

purchased by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private

Page 7 of 11 respondents challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities

before the High Court.

12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court

has misdirected itself while dealing with the issues involved. The import of

the Section 30 of the Code was misread and misinterpreted. For ready

reference, Section 30 of the Code is 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, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book

for each village. Any changes made therein have to be recorded annually

or after such longer intervals as may be prescribed. The second part of

section provides that the Collector shall also cause to correct any errors

or omissions which are detected from time to time in any such map or field

book. Use of word ‘also’ clearly depicts that the second part is in addition

Page 8 of 11 to the first part. It is in continuation of the same. Even otherwise, first part

deals with maintenance of records annually or at such intervals as may

be prescribed and recording the changes therein. It may include change

of ownership on account of sale or purchase of land or of inheritance.

Exchange of land can be another mode. The process of consolidation may

also have effect on the revenue record maintained under Section 30 of

the Code. The second part talks about errors detected and for their

correction. It may be at any time.

14. If the facts of this case are examined, the issue regarding

correction of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed

by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was

dismissed on 04.09.2001. The maps were already final. Respondent no.1

had purchased the land and his vendors could hand over the possession

of the land which they owned and possessed. After purchase, effort made

by the private respondents to get the revenue map corrected had failed.

They could not be permitted to raise the 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.

Page 9 of 11

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 interlocutory, and the proceedings having not been terminated, this

Court should not interfere. However, the view expressed in the aforesaid

judgment will not detain us from recording that after going into the facts of

the case, we find that the remand of the matter, in the case at hand, was

totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of Section 30 of the Code

which needs correction by this Court. This could have generated

unnecessary further litigation.

17. 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

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. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in

Page 10 of 11 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others 8; State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Sudhir Kumar Singh and others9 and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State

of Madhya Pradesh 10

18. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.

.........................................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

..........................................J. (MANMOHAN) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 9th, 2025.

8 (1999) 6 SCC 237 9 (2021) 19 SCC 706 10 2024 SCC Online SC 493

Page 11 of 11