- (1.) (for self and for K. N. Goyal, J.) :-After publication of the notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer praying for correction of map prepared by the consolidation authorities on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the map as well as in C. H. Form 45. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that because Consolidation operations were over in the village, as such the map cannot be corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act or under any other section. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division and the Additional Commissioner relying on Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U. P. 1973 AWR 620 held that the map prepared by the consolidation authorities was final and the revenue authorities were incompetent to make any correction. In that case the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 42-A and 27 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act held that Section 42-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act does enable the authorities to correct the size and shape of plots in the map prepared under Section 27 (1) by referring to the record of rights and Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is only for the purpose of specifying the procedure for preparation of the map and record. As such the Consolidation authorities alone were competent to make any alteration in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities. From the facts of the said case it is not clear when the cause of action arose and whether the village was still under consolidation and whether notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings. Act had been published. There is yet another Section 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and a perusal of Section 27 (2) shows that the entries which were made earlier were final and conclusive and a presumption of correctness was attached to them meaning thereby that the said presumption could be rebutted. Section 27 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that after the issue of notification under Sec. 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field-book and record- of -rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-book and record -of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act 1901 relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record of rights shall mutatis mutandis apply.
(2.) THUS after consolidation operations are over and the notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is published it is the Collector who is to maintain the map, field-book etc., and such a map and field-book can be corrected under the Land Revenue Act and under such circumstances the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not go to the extent of rendering the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act nugatory, so far as correction of map prepared during consolidation operations is concerned. Our attention has been drawn to another case Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue, 1973 AWR 621 in which it was held that a map prepared by the consolidation authorities is not necessarily final and conclusive and a map incorrectly drawn up cannot be treated as final and conclusive and can be corrected under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Looking to the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Land Revenue Act, we are in agreement with the view expressed in Mohammad Raza v. Board of Revenue (supra) and we hold that if a map is subsequently found incorrect and it is not in conformity with the document prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can in suitable cases be corrected subsequent to the publication of the notification under Sec. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Collector in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. Thus we are of the view that the law laid down in Ganga Glass Works (Private) Ltd., Balawali v. State of U. P. (supra) is not a good law.
(3.) THUS the powers of the Collector under Section 28 of the D. P. Land Revenue Act for correcting the map in suitable cases are intact notwithstanding the map has been prepared by the consolidation authorities who have adjudicated : the rights and title of the parties. In case there is any discrepancy in the map and final document has been prepared by the consolidation authorities, the same can be corrected in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act provided the right, interest and title of the party which have been finally adjudicated or have become final are not involved. In the present case after notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published, an application was moved by the petitioner for correction of the map and the petitioner tendered evidence that the map was not in conformity with the entries which were made in C.H. Form 45. It was obligatory on the authorities to correct the map in case they were satisfied that there was some discrepancy between the map and the entries in C. H. Form 45 and it is on a mistaken view of law that they have refused to grant this relief to the petitioner.;