Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014661-014661 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 52717/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts and revenue authorities |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court’s remand order; affirms finality principle in revenue map corrections |
| Type of Law | Land revenue procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that Section 30 comprises two distinct parts—annual or prescribed‐interval maintenance of maps and field books, and correction of detected errors or omissions. It does not empower reopening of a finally settled plot location. Once map correction applications under the 1901 Act were dismissed and those orders attained finality, a belated application under Section 30 of the Code—made 17 years later—was beyond the scope of “error or omission” correction. The High Court’s remand based on misreading Section 30 generated avoidable litigation and was set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Private respondents’ application under Section 28 of the 1901 Act for map correction of Plot 22 was dismissed in 1998 and appeal rejected in 2001, attaining finality. A fresh application under Sections 30/38 of the 2006 Code in 2018 was dismissed in 2020 and appeal in 2023. The High Court remanded the matter, which the Supreme Court found to be based on misinterpretation of Section 30. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and revenue authorities in Uttar Pradesh |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Overrules | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s remand order dated 21.09.2023 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 30 of the UP Revenue Code does not allow re-location of plots already finally settled; it permits correction only of genuine errors or omissions in maps and field books.
- Finality of map-correction orders under the 1901 Act cannot be bypassed by a belated application under Section 30, even if many years have elapsed.
- High Courts must avoid remanding cases based on misinterpretation of statutory provisions, as such remands spawn multiplicity of litigation.
- The decision is binding, and practitioners can cite it to resist applications seeking to reopen settled revenue records after the lapse of appeal periods.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Finality under 1901 Act: The Collector’s 1998 order under Section 28 and the Additional Commissioner’s 2001 appeal rejection attained finality; no “error or omission” remained to be corrected.
- Fresh application under the Code: Seventeen years later, a Section 30/38 application was filed; both the Collector (2020) and appellate authority (2023) dismissed it on res judicata grounds.
- Statutory interpretation: Section 30(1) mandates annual (or prescribed-interval) maintenance of maps/field books and recording of changes (sales, inheritance, consolidation). Section 30(2) allows correction only of errors or omissions. The word “also” indicates the second part is additional, not a carte blanche to reopen settled boundaries.
- Res judicata principle: Once map correction litigation concludes, parties cannot re-raise the same issue under the Code.
- Remand jurisprudence: Citing Satyadhyan Ghosal, the Court noted that wrongful or unnecessary remands—especially based on misinterpretation—should be set aside to curb litigation, aligning with later decisions (M.C. Mehta; State of UP v. Sudhir; Krishnadatt Awasthy).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – Suvej Singh):
- Section 30 cannot be invoked to reopen a settled map issue; only genuine errors/omissions are correctable.
- High Court’s remand was based on a wrong interpretation of Section 30, leading to unnecessary litigation.
- Finality of the 2001 order must be respected; multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided.
Respondents (Private Respondents):
- Section 30 imposes a duty on the Collector to maintain and correct maps periodically; res judicata does not bar a fresh exercise under the new Code.
- Remand for fresh hearing is interlocutory and ordinarily not interfered with by the Supreme Court.
- The High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction to ensure compliance with Section 30’s mandate.
Factual Background
Private respondents applied in 1997 under Section 28 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 for map correction of Plot 22, dismissed by the Collector in May 1998; appeal dismissed in September 2001, attaining finality. In July 2018, they filed a fresh application under Sections 30/38 of the 2006 Code; the Collector rejected it in January 2020, and the appellate authority upheld that in April 2023. The High Court set aside both orders and remanded for fresh consideration, prompting the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 30(1): Obligates annual (or prescribed intervals) maintenance of village maps and field books, recording all boundary and survey-number changes (sales, inheritance, consolidation).
- Section 30(2): Requires correction of detected errors or omissions “also”—indicating a separate, additional duty.
- The judgment rejects any expansive reading that would allow revisiting a finally settled location without genuine error. No constitutional provisions were invoked.
Procedural Innovations
- The Supreme Court signals restraint against unwarranted remands by High Courts, emphasizing the curtailment of litigation in revenue matters.
- Reinforces that remand power must not be employed to generate fresh rounds of dispute when statutory interpretation is settled.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court’s remand on misinterpretation overturned
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Satyadhyan Ghosal; M.C. Mehta; State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh; Krishnadatt Awasthy
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s view vs. Supreme Court’s decision