Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Issue regarding correction of revenue map stood settled in the earlier proceedings between the parties in 2001 – However, the private respondents raised the same issue about 17 years later filing an application u/s.30/38 for correction of the map – Dismissed by Revenue Authorities – Writ Petition filed by private respondents – High Court set aside the orders of the Authorities and interpreting s.30, remanded the matter to the respondent No.4 for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – 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 in 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 – With the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot purchased by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private respondents challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities before the High Court – High Court misread and misinterpreted the import of s.30 – It was not a case where any error was found in the revenue record which deserved correction u/s.30 – Remand of the matter was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of s.30 which could have generated unnecessary further litigation – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 12, 14-16, 18]
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Maintenance of Map and Field Book – Import of – Interpretation. [Para 13] Order of remand – Interference by Supreme Court – Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Plea of the private respondents that in a case where the matter has been remanded, Supreme Court does not interfere:
Held: An order of remand being interlocutory, and the proceedings having not been terminated, this Court should not interfere – However, in the facts of the present case, the remand of the matter was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of s.30 of the Code which needs correction by this Court – This could have generated unnecessary further litigation. [Para 16] Principles of natural justice – Violations of – Matter if to be remanded – Change in view overtime:
Held: 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. [Para 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey (1999) 6 SCC 237 (2021) 19 SCC 706 2024 SCC Online SC 493. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.