UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court

"The limited nature of the jurisdiction under Section 28 requires greater adherence to the statutory procedure; it does not dilute such requirement." Allahabad High Court has held that summary proceedings for map correction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 cannot be utilized to mechanically deduct land from one tenure-holder to make up for an alleged deficiency in an adjoining plot, particularly when a civil title suit is pending and a permanent construction stands over the disputed portion.

A bench of Justice Irshad Ali observed that while Section 28 proceedings do not determine substantive title, the summary nature of the inquiry does not grant revenue authorities the license to act upon unverified or disputed measurements without dealing with material objections raised by the affected parties.

The petitioners, registered purchasers of Gata No. 764, had instituted civil suits against the private respondents concerning illegal encroachment and construction over their land. During the pendency of these civil disputes, the private respondents initiated proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, seeking correction of the revenue map on the ground that adjoining Gata No. 763 was deficient in area. Acting upon a report of the Mukhya Anurakshak, Chakbandi, the revenue authorities directed the deduction of approximately 4 Biswa 1 Dhur from Gata No. 764 to compensate Gata No. 763, which was affirmed in revision.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the revenue authorities, while exercising limited summary jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, could validly alter the boundary and map of adjoining plots by treating one plot's deficiency as the other's excess without properly determining the alleged error through a lawful survey and without addressing specific objections concerning existing constructions and pending civil litigation.

Section 28 Orders Are Subject To Judicial Review Despite Summary Nature

Justice Irshad Ali addressed the respondents' contention that proceedings under Section 28 are purely summary in nature and therefore immune from extensive judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that while it is settled law that revenue entries and map corrections do not conclusively confer or extinguish proprietary title, this does not shield revenue orders from judicial review when they operate beyond statutory limits or rely on unsubstantiated survey methods.

Summary Scope Demands Stricter Adherence To Prescribed Procedure

The Court emphasized that because Section 28 is confined to rectifying clerical or cartographic errors to bring the revenue map into alignment with authentic records, revenue authorities must observe the prescribed statutory procedure with utmost vigilance. Rather than relaxing the standard of inquiry, the limited scope of the statutory power requires strict compliance before altering the depiction of land that tenure-holders occupy.

"The limited nature of the jurisdiction under Section 28 requires greater adherence to the statutory procedure; it does not dilute such requirement."

Revenue Authorities Cannot Mechanically Shift Land From One Plot To Another

Scrutinizing the approach adopted by the Additional District Magistrate, the Court held that authorities cannot proceed on the artificial presumption that any deficiency in one plot must automatically be compensated by subtracting area from an adjoining plot. The Court pointed out that revenue authorities were bound to first determine through an objective, lawful survey whether an error actually existed in the map, rather than arbitrarily carving out land from the petitioners' plot.

"They could not, under the guise of such correction, proceed upon a disputed assumption that the alleged deficiency of Gata No.763 necessarily represented excess land in Gata No.764 and thereafter deduct a specific portion from the petitioners' plot."

Failure To Address Objections Regarding Existing Structures Vitiates Proceedings

The bench found serious fault with the revenue authorities for turning a blind eye to the petitioners' specific objection that a permanent house was already constructed over the parcel sought to be transferred to the respondents. The Court observed that when a proposed map alteration directly impacts an existing structure and established possession, the revenue authority cannot rubber-stamp an advocate commissioner's or tracer's report without recording explicit findings on those objections.

Distinguishing Precedents On Alternative Remedies And Title Disputes

The respondents had relied upon precedents including Triveni Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and Rajjab Ali v. Additional Commissioner Faizabad to contend that any aggrieved party must approach the civil court rather than invoking writ jurisdiction. Distinguishing these judgments, Justice Irshad Ali held that those cases dealt with instances where no foundational objections were raised below or where parties merely asserted title. The Court underscored that those rulings do not permit authorities to mechanically accept flawed survey reports while ignoring patent irregularities and ongoing civil litigation.

"Where a party specifically challenges the very foundation of the proposed map correction, disputes the manner of measurement, points out the existence of a constructed house over the affected portion and places before the revenue authority the fact of pending civil litigation concerning the same property, the authority is nevertheless not entitled to mechanically accept a report without recording a proper finding on such objections."

Pendency Of Civil Suits Over Substantive Title Requires Caution

The High Court observed that multiple civil suits concerning the identity, title, and ownership of the disputed land were already sub-judice between the parties. In such a scenario, any hasty alteration of the revenue map based on a disputed triangular measurement methodology carried the risk of prejudicing substantive rights under adjudication before the civil court. The Court noted that the revisional authority, Additional Commissioner (Judicial), had completely failed to cure these fundamental jurisdictional defects.

Directions For Fresh Demarcation Confined Strictly To Statutory Limits

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the order dated July 20, 2004 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Sultanpur, along with the revisional order dated July 3, 2006. The matter was remitted back to the competent revenue authority to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly within the boundaries of Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

The Court directed that the authority must afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, inspect the authentic survey records, and, if required, order a fresh measurement in accordance with the prescribed procedure after notifying all sides. The bench specifically mandated that the petitioners' objections regarding the triangular measurement technique and the existing residential structure must be resolved through a reasoned order within six months, without entering into or adjudicating substantive questions of title.

The High Court thus reaffirmed that summary map correction proceedings under revenue law cannot be weaponized to effectively redraw boundaries or alter possession over disputed, constructed land under the pretext of correcting field records.

Date of Decision: October 23, 2026