- (1.) THE petitioner approach ed the Additional Collector, purported ly under Section 28 of the Land Reve nue Act, 1901, for rectification of a map prepared under Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Additional Collector declined to interfere on the ground that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act barred a revenue court, inter alia, from entering upon the correctness or other wise of a map prepared by the consoli dation authorities. He also pointed out that the petitioner ought to have ap proached the consolidation authorities to correct the map under Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner took a different view and recommended to the Board of Revenue that the order of the Additional Collector be set aside and the case be remanded with a direction that the application be decided on merits. The Board of Revenue, how ever, was inclined to agree with the Additional Collector and hence reject ed the reference. The petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the order of the Board of Revenue.
(2.) IT was urged that Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act permits correction of errors in the maps and the Additional Collector should be directed to decide the application on merits. Section 27 (1) of the Consolida tion of Holdings Act requires the con solidation authorities to prepare a new map, field-book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area on the basis of the records mentioned in the section, and further states that the provisions of the Land Revenue Act shall, subject to such modification and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. It is by reason of the reference to the Land Revenue Act that the learned counsel for the peti tioner argued that Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was attracted and the petitioner could, therefore, ap proach the revenue authorities for cor rection of the map. I am unable to agree with the argument. The provi sions of the Land Revenue Act are re ferred to in Section 27 (1) of the Con solidation of Holdings Act only for the purpose of specifying the procedure for preparation of the map and records. If the map is prepared by the consolida tion authorities, the consolidation au thorities alone are competent to make any alterations in the map and the revenue authorities cannot resort to Sec tion 28 of the Land Revenue Act and make corrections in a map prepared by the consolidation authorities. In that view, the application of the petitioner moved to the Additional Collector was misconceived and incompetent; he should have approached the consolidation au thorities if he had a grievance against the map. Though the grievance spelt out in the petition against the map is wider, the learned counsel for the peti tioner made_ it clear at the hearing that the complaint was only regarding the size and shape of the two plots, Nos. 114 and 117 and contended that there is no provision in the Consolidation of Holdings Act which enables the consoli dation authorities to alter the size and shape of the plots in the map prepared under Section 27 (1). If the record of rights and the map vary in the matter of size of the plot,
(3.) SECTION 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act does en able the authorities concerned to reconcile the size In the map with the size recorded in the record of rights. Similarly the shape also would be an error which would come within the purview of Section 42-A of the Act and can be corrected by the Consolidation authorities. Since the petitioner has chosen to approach an incompetent au thority for redress of his grievance and since the Board of Revenue has declin ed to grant the redress, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot be dis turbed and the petition is, therefore, dis missed. No order as to costs.` Petition dismissed.;