Court holds that correction of revenue maps under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 Section 28 is summary and cannot determine title or ownership; mandates fresh measurement and hearing in light of pending civil litigation.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 23, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, presided over by Justice Irshad Ali, quashed the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Additional Commissioner under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, concerning correction of land records related to Gata Nos. 763 and 764 at Village Nara, District Sultanpur. The court remanded the matter back to the competent revenue authority for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and after affording all affected parties a fair opportunity of hearing.
The petitioners, Bans Bahadur Singh and another, had challenged the orders dated July 20, 2004, and the revisional order dated July 3, 2006, which mechanically altered the area of Gata No. 764 to compensate for the alleged deficiency in adjoining Gata No. 763 based on a report by the Mukhya Anurakshak, Chakbandi. The petitioners contended that the revenue authorities had failed to conduct a lawful survey, ignored their objections including the existence of a constructed house on the disputed portion, and proceeded without due consideration of the pending civil suits regarding title and possession.
The factual matrix revealed a complex dispute involving multiple civil suits over ownership, possession, and illegal constructions on the land parcels in question. The petitioners had purchased Gata No. 764 through a registered sale deed and had initiated civil proceedings against encroachments and illegal constructions by other respondents. Despite pending civil litigation directly involving the ownership and boundaries of the disputed land, the revenue authorities proceeded to alter the revenue map and field-book entries in a summary proceeding under Section 28.
The High Court underscored that proceedings under Section 28 are summary in nature, intended only for correction of genuine errors in revenue maps and field-books, and cannot be used as a forum to adjudicate or indirectly determine title, ownership, or substantive proprietary rights. The court held that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to mechanically adjust the area of one gata to compensate for another without conducting a proper lawful survey and without addressing the objections raised by the petitioners. The triangular method of measurement adopted by the Mukhya Anurakshak was found to be improper, especially as it resulted in including a significant portion of land where a house was constructed within Gata No. 763, adversely affecting the petitioners' property rights.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure, specifically mandating that the revenue authorities must consider all objections, including those related to pending civil litigation, existence of constructions, and disputed measurements. The presumption of correctness in revenue entries under Section 57 does not bar a party from establishing title before a civil court, and the revenue authorities cannot encroach upon this jurisdiction.
The orders impugned were quashed, and the case was remanded with clear directions that the competent authority must conduct a fresh measurement, examine the original survey maps and revenue records, and pass a reasoned order without adjudicating on title or ownership, which remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts. The fresh exercise was directed to be completed preferably within six months, ensuring speedy resolution while safeguarding the parties' rights.
This judgment reinforces the legal position that revenue authorities must exercise caution and procedural fairness while correcting revenue records and must refrain from trespassing into matters of title and ownership that are exclusively triable by civil courts. The decision provides guidance on balancing the administrative functions of revenue authorities with the constitutional rights of property owners and the jurisdictional limits of summary revenue proceedings.
Bottom Line:
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Section 28 proceedings are summary in nature - Revenue authorities cannot, under guise of correction of map and field-book, mechanically alter area of one gata to compensate alleged deficiency of adjoining gata without lawful survey, proper consideration of objections and without trenching upon disputed questions of title pending before Civil Court - Orders quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 Section 28, Section 34, Section 35, Section 57; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Bans Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001696
