Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mirzapur (respondent no. 2) and the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyachal Division (Mirzapur) (respondent no. 1).
The petitioner claims to be a tenure holder of plot no. 557 and has stated in the writ petition that respondent nos. 3 to 6 are tenure holders of plot no. 562 and respondent no. 7 is the tenure holder of plot no. 563. The petitioner, alleging that the revenue map incorrectly reflected a lesser area of plot no. 557, filed an application under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1901) for correction of map. The said application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate vide his order dated 28.4.2001, against which the petitioner filed a revision which was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 24.10.2005.
Plot nos. 557, 562 and 563 have been constituted from different parts of old plot no. 381. In the proceedings registered under Section 28 of the Act, 1901, the petitioner claimed that she was allotted 1 Bigha 16 Bishwa during the consolidation operations and the 'Chak' allotted to her, was of the same area as a consequence of some compromise entered between the different 'Chak' holders. The Revenue Authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for correction of map on the ground that there was no evidence on record that the map incorrectly showed a lesser area of plot no. 557.
Proceedings under Section 28 of the Act, 1901 relate to correction of map. The area of a plot as recorded in the 'Khatauni' relating to the said plot should be reflected in the map. There is nothing on record of the writ petition to indicate that the area of plot no. 557 as recorded in the 'Khatauni' of the said plot has been recorded less than the area allotted to the petitioner during the consolidation operations. There is nothing on record to indicate any compromise between the different tenure holders, as alleged by the petitioner. The different reports of the Revenue Officers filed in the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act, 1901 only show that the areas of plot nos. 562 and 563, as shown in the map, were more than the area of the said plot, as recorded in the 'Khatauni' relating to the said plots but the reports of the different Revenue Officers do not indicate that the map incorrectly reflected a lesser area of plot no. 557.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.4.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mirzapur (respondent no. 2) and the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyachal Division (Mirzapur) (respondent no. 1).
The present writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 A.P. Pandey