- (1.) I have heard Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4. Learned Standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1,2 and 3 and Sri D.D. Chauhan who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5 are present.
(2.) PARTIES have exchanged pleadings and apart from counter and rejoinder affidavits a supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the parties agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner in revision thereto. The aforesaid orders allow the application of the respondent no. 4 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of the map. The petitioners are owners of plot no. 237 whereas respondent no. 4 is the owner of plot no. 224. Respondent no. 4 applied under Section 28 of the Act for correction of map on the ground that the area of his plot shown in the map is less than the actual area. The application was registered as case no. 69/190 of 2008-09. A report was called for and it was reported that the area of plot of respondent no. 4 is less and there is some extra land in the plot of the petitioners. The application was allowed but in revision the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh. On remand Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 13.7.2009 again allowed the application of the respondent no. 4. Petitioners revision before the Commissioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on 19.10.2011.
(3.) IMPUGNING the aforesaid orders, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the valuable land of the petitioners on the road side has been taken away and the finding that their plot no. 237 has an extra area is perverse. A perusal of the impugned orders and the report reveal that the area of plot no. 224 which belongs to the respondent no. 4 is short of 5 biswa 14 dhoor in area and is not accordance with the verified map (pustikrit bhoochitra) and that there is some extra land in plots no. 235, 236 and 237. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact which has been returned by both the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to establish that the aforesaid finding is perverse. Actually, he is unable to controvert that the aforesaid plots especially plot no. 237 is not having extra area.;