Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court remand that had reopened a 17-year-old settled dispute over correction of a revenue map. Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 allows correction of errors or omissions detected in the map or field book, not a fresh attempt to relocate a plot after an earlier correction application had failed and attained finality.
Issues
- Whether, after an earlier application for correction of the revenue map had been dismissed and that dismissal had attained finality, the private respondents could seek the same correction again under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 about 17 years later.
- Whether the High Court correctly read Section 30 of the Code in setting aside the revenue authorities' orders and remanding the matter.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an order of remand.
Provisions considered
- Section 30, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006The Court read the first part as a duty to maintain the map and field book and record changes (such as sale, inheritance, exchange or consolidation) annually or at prescribed intervals, and the second part, introduced by 'also', as an additional power to correct errors or omissions detected at any time. An attempt to change the location of a purchased plot is not a correction of an error within the section. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Section 28, Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901The earlier application for map correction had been made under this provision and dismissed, the Additional Commissioner finding that seeking a new location for the plot lay outside its scope; that order attained finality. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- Under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the Collector must maintain the village map and field book and record changes annually or at prescribed intervals, and the word 'also' shows that the power to correct errors or omissions detected from time to time is in addition to that duty and may be exercised at any time. (¶ 13)
- Where the correction of the map had been finally refused in earlier proceedings between the same parties, and no error in the record was shown, a renewed application more than 17 years later seeking in substance a more valuable location for the purchased plot did not fall within the scope of correction under Section 30 and could not be entertained. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14)
- A purchaser who bought land knowing its location could acquire only what the vendors possessed, and had no cause of action to seek a correction of the map to relocate it. (¶¶ 8, 11)
- Although an order of remand is interlocutory and the Court ordinarily does not interfere with it, interference is justified where the remand rests on a wrong premise and a wrong reading of the statute and would only generate further litigation; unnecessary remands by higher courts should be avoided. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order of remand set aside, restoring the revenue authorities' rejection of the correction application.