Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act are under challenge. It appears that an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act for correction of map of plot No.626 area 0.1140 hectares situated at village- Belaun, Pargana and Tehsil Dibaie, District Bulandshahar was filed on the ground that applicants and his co-sharers are owner in possession of the land in question and their names have been duly recorded in the revenue records. The applicant is respondent no.5 before this Court. It is contended by the respondent no.5 in the aforesaid application that the consolidation operations were held in village in the year 1965-66. At the time of preparation of final consolidation map, the shape of plot no.625 has wrongly been shown, as a result of which, the shape of plot no.626 owned by the respondent no.5 had been changed. The contention was that the correction in the shape of plot no.626 as shown in the final consolidation map is required as it is not in conformity with Pustikrit Naksha (provisional consolidation map). It was further stated that plot no.626 and 625 have been kept out of the consolidation and, therefore, their position in the map should be as per the previous map. No change could have been done during the course of consolidation.
2. On the said application, objections was filed by the petitioner on 16.10.2014, it was stated therein that plot no.626 old number of which is 569 area 0.1140 hectares is land of Kabristan. The name of the respondent no.5/applicant has wrongly been recorded in the revenue records. They are not the owner in possession thereof. The petitioners/objector is owner of plot no.625 which is adjacent to plot no.626 and by making correction, as suggested by the respondent no.5, the shape of plot no.625 would vary.
3. It appears that a report dated 21.01.2015 was submitted by the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation suggesting correction in the area of plot no.626 and 625 in the final consolidation map. It was stated in the said report that plot no.625 has been made from old plots no.557 and 568 whereas plot no.626 has been made from old plot no.569. It is also stated therein that the consolidation proceedings have been held in the village for the first time in the year 1965-66. The base map of the consolidation was map known as "Philips Saheb". The changes suggested in the report according to the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation would make the shape of the plot no.626 in conformity with the old map "Philips Saheb".
4. The petitioner filed objection to the said report on the ground that in case, of any correction made by the Additional Collector, as suggested by the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation, the petitioner''s way to plot no.625 in plot no.628 would be blocked.
5. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) vide order dated 25.05.20156 has admitted the report submitted by the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation, and the objection taken by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that plot no.626 (old no.569) has been kept out of consolidation. The shape of old plot no.569 should be in conformity with the base map and no changes could have been done during the course of consolidation in the final consolidation map. So far as the claim made by the petitioner with regard to obstructions to his plot no.625, it was held that the proceedings for correction of map are summary proceedings and would not come in the way of the parties in the pending suit, if any. Confirming the report of Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation, a direction was given to make correction in the map. The Revisional court also dismissed the revision on the same ground.
6. Challenging the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the respondent no.5 regarding ownership of plot no.626 area 0.1140 hectares on the ground that he was owner in possession of the said plot along with his co-sharers, was the basis of moving application for correction under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. The said stand taken by the respondent no.5 was in contradiction to the assertions made by him in the application itself that plot no.626 was kept out of consolidation. The Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation has also given the report that plot no.626 (old number of which is 569) has been kept out of consolidation. In view thereof, no correction could have been done on the application moved by respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 had tried to substantiate his claim regarding ownership of plot no.626 by moving an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahr did not apply its mind to this aspect of the matter and simply affirmed the report of the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation to order for correction of the final consolidation map.
7. From a perusal of the memo of the revision filed by the petitioner, it appears that a stand has been taken by the petitioner that the map 1370 fasli is available in the record of consolidation which was submitted to the consolidation authorities as "Pustikrit map" at the time of preparation of the final consolidation map. The plot no.626 is recorded as the land of Kabristan which is a public utility land and the respondent no.5 cannot have any claim of ownership over the said land.
8. Repelling the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal appearing for respondent no.5 passed on a copy of the Khatauni for the year 1418-1423 fasli, Khasra of the village and C.H. form-45 to submit that the land in plot no.268 (new) is recorded as Kabristan in C.H. form-45, whereas plot no.626, (new number) is recorded in the name of Indrajeet son of Ramchand who according to the respondent no.5 was his predecessor-in-interest. During the course of argument, a categorical stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that the land in plot no.626 area 0.1140 hectares is the Bhumidari land of the respondent no.5 wherein ''Samadhis'' of his ancestors are existing, the said land is not a Kabristan as suggested by the petitioner. The orders passed by the Revenue authorities for correction of map is justified on the ground that the corrections have been done keeping in consideration of the base map which was submitted by the Consolidation authorities.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,it is clear that though the application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the plot in question namely plot no.626 (old number of which was 569) was his Bhumidhari land, however, simultaneously a stand has been taken that the said plot had been kept out of consolidation. The existence of Kabristan over plot no.626 is not disputed, however, it is sought to be submitted that the said Kabristan belongs to the respondent no.5. The Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation in his report dated 21.01.2015 has also stated that plot no.626 has been kept out of consolidation. It was further stated by him that the area of plot no.626 is in excess and the shape of the said plot is not in conformity with the original map which was termed as map "Philips Saheb".
10. It is also evident from the record that the Additional Collector, (Finance and Revenue) simply affirmed the report submitted by the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation without making any independent enquiry to the documents pertaining to the consolidation proceedings namely the record of rights and the final consolidation map etc.
11. In case, the plot no.626 (old no.569) has been kept out of consolidation, it was incumbent upon the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahr to examine the original map which was placed before the Consolidation authorities as "Pustikrit map" at the time of preparation of the final map. No such exercise has been done.
12. This apart, the contention of the petitioner in the correction application regarding ownership of plot no.626 has also not been examined nor any decision has been taken thereon. The objections taken by the petitioner before the Revisional court regarding the nature of plot in question namely plot no.626 (old no.569) has also not been considered nor any finding has been arrived as to the nature of the plot no.626 (old no.569) as per the records.
13. Under the consolidation scheme, the provisional scheme/map is prepared under Chapter III of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Section 19-A provides for preparation of provisional Consolidation Scheme and Section 23 of the said chapter speaks for Confirmation of provisional Consolidation scheme after consideration of the objection, if any, of the parties concerned. Section 27(1) as contained in Chapter IV of the Act provides that Deputy Director of Consolidation shall prepare a new map, field book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of entries in the map, as corrected under Section 7, the Khasra Chakbandi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made under the provisions of the Act. Section 27(2) raises a presumption with regard to correctness of the entries in the record of rights prepared under Sub Section-(1) of Section 27. Section 27(3) further provides that the Collector shall maintain the new map prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub Section (1) in place of the old map. However, it further provides that in case, of any mistake of clerical or arithmetical nature, the entries in the map can be corrected and for any correction, the provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall apply. There is no dispute about the fact that the entries, if wrongly made in the record of rights or the position of plots if wrongly mentioned in the final consolidation map, can be corrected by the Collector who is in-charge of the final consolidation map after preparation of the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(3) read with Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act.
14. However, it is also established that while making correction in the final consolidation map, the Collector has to satisfy himself with regard to the entries in the records on the basis of which final consolidation map has been prepared.
15. The stand taken by the petitioner and respondent no.5 both in their application and objection before the Collector was that plot no.626 (old no.569) was recorded as ''Kabristan'' and was kept out of consolidation. The Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation in his report has also mentioned the said fact. He has mentioned the old map as "Map Philips Saheb" whereas the petitioner in his objection before the Revisional Authorities has mentioned that the map of 1370 fasli as the map which was presented before the Consolidation Authorities as "Pustikrit map" for the purpose of preparation of final consolidation map.
16. In view of the said assertions of the parties culled out from the records, it was incumbent upon the Collector to record independent findings with regard to the position of the plots existing in the records. No such efforts has been made and hence the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.05.2015 solely based on the report of the Chief Draftsmen, Consolidation dated 27.01.2015, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The revisional court order dated 18.11.2015, confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, is also being set aside for the same reason.
17. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, (Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahr to decide afresh after obtaining a fresh report regarding the existing position of the plot in question, the entries in the record of rights prepared at the time of consolidation, the base map which was submitted before the Consolidation Authorities as "Pustikrit Map" at the time of preparation of final consolidation map, keeping in view of the contention of the parties that the land in plot no.626 (old no.569) was kept out of the consolidation. The reports so submitted by the competent authority be supplied to both the parties who may file their objection thereupon. The Additional Collector, Bulandshahar shall, thereafter, pass a fresh order after consideration of the objection and the records of Consolidation keeping in view the nature of land in question i.e. plot no.626 area 0.1140 hectares which is in dispute in the present petition.
18. An expeditious decision in accordance with law shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
