Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31223 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahendri Devi Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, for correction of map.
An application was filed by the respondent for correction of the revenue map on the ground that plot nos. 632 and 633 had been interchanged in so far as their location in the map prepared by the Consolidation Authorities is concerned.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties and after obtaining reports, the contention of the respondent has been accepted and the location of this plots on the map has been inter changed.
The consequential revision has been dismissed. Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, reads as under:-
"39. Certain orders of revenue officers not to debar a suit. - No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under Section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 35 or by a Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 38 or by a Commissioner under [sub-section (4) of Section 38] shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under Section 144."
It is therefore clear that the order impugned passed in proceedings for correction in the revenue map are subject to a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which can be filed by an aggrieved party, seeking a declaration in his favour.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not consider it expedient to interfere.
The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner in case, so advised, may seek a declaration in his favour as provided under Section 39 of the Revenue Code, 2006 by means of a suit u/s 144 of the Code.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019/sweta