Legal provisions involved: Section 30 of the UP Revenue Code
Judgement by: Supreme Court
Judge/Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
Facts
The case involved a dispute over correction of a revenue map. Almost 20 years ago, revenue officials had already checked the map through a commission report and nazari map and confirmed that both parties were in possession of their correct sub-plots. That decision became final.
After 17 years, one party again filed a fresh application under the UP Revenue Code seeking correction. The Collector and Additional Commissioner rejected it, saying the matter had already been settled. The High Court, however, ordered the case to be reconsidered, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key legal provisions
Section 30 of the UP Revenue Code, 2016
Issues raised
- Whether a dispute that was settled nearly 20 years ago be reopened under Section 30?
- Whether the High Court wrongly directed the matter to be reopened?
Arguments of the case
The appellant said the issue was already decided long ago and the new application was only to change the plot’s position. The respondents argued that Section 30 allows corrections any time and that the High Court had acted correctly.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misunderstood Section 30. The law allows only correction of genuine mistakes, not reopening old, settled disputes. The court restored the earlier orders rejecting the new application.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
