SUVEJ SINGHversusRAM NARESH AND ORS.

               [2025] 12 S.C.R. 584 : 2025 INSC 1405

                             Suvej Singh
                                  v.
                          Ram Naresh and Ors.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 14661 of 2025)
                             09 December 2025
                [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court misinterpreted the import of s.30, Uttar
       Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and erred in remanding the matter
       back for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of
       hearing to all concerned.

                                 Headnotes†
       Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Issue regarding
       correction of revenue map stood settled in the earlier
       proceedings between the parties in 2001 – However, the
       private respondents raised the same issue about 17 years
       later filing an application u/s.30/38 for correction of the
       map – Dismissed by Revenue Authorities – Writ Petition filed
       by private respondents – High Court set aside the orders of
       the Authorities and interpreting s.30, remanded the matter to
       the respondent No.4 for consideration afresh after affording
       due opportunity of hearing to all concerned – Sustainability:
       Held: Not sustainable – The issue regarding correction of map
       stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed by the
       private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was
       dismissed in 2001 – The maps were already final – Respondent
       no.1 had purchased the land and his vendors could hand over
       the possession of the land which they owned and possessed –
       After purchase, effort made by the private respondents to get the
       revenue map corrected had failed – They could not be permitted
       to raise the same issue after a gap of more than 17 years – With
       the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot purchased
       by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private respondents
       challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities before the
       High Court – High Court misread and misinterpreted the import of


* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                              585

                     Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors.


     s.30 – It was not a case where any error was found in the revenue
     record which deserved correction u/s.30 – Remand of the matter
     was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of s.30 which
     could have generated unnecessary further litigation – Impugned
     order set aside. [Paras 12, 14-16, 18]
     Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Maintenance of
     Map and Field Book – Import of – Interpretation. [Para 13]
     Order of remand – Interference by Supreme Court – Uttar
     Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – s.30 – Plea of the private
     respondents that in a case where the matter has been
     remanded, Supreme Court does not interfere:
     Held: An order of remand being interlocutory, and the proceedings
     having not been terminated, this Court should not interfere –
     However, in the facts of the present case, the remand of the matter
     was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of s.30 of
     the Code which needs correction by this Court – This could have
     generated unnecessary further litigation. [Para 16]

     Principles of natural justice – Violations of – Matter if to be
     remanded – Change in view overtime:
     Held: Earlier view by this Court was that in case there were violations
     of principles of natural justice, the matter was to be remanded for
     affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned – However,
     with the passage of time, the view changed – The idea is to curtail
     the litigation and not generate it – Any unnecessary remand by a
     Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should be
     avoided. [Para 17]

                               Case Law Cited
     Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another
     [1960] 3 SCR 590 : AIR 1960 SC 941; M.C. Mehta v. Union of
     India and Others [1999] 3 SCR 1173 : (1999) 6 SCC 237; State
     of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others [2020] 13
     SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC 706; Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State
     of Madhya Pradesh [2024] 4 SCR 151 : 2024 SCC Online SC
     493 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
586                                                              [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


                                        List of Keywords
       Matter remanded; Case remanded; Matter remanded for
       consideration afresh; Fresh consideration; Correction of revenue
       map; Correction of map; Settled issue; Issue already stood settled;
       Unnecessary remand by a Higher Court; Fresh round of litigation;
       Multiplicity of litigation; Order attained finality; Reopening a settled
       issue; Interpretation of Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
       Code, 2006; Matter wrongly remanded; Violations of principles
       of natural justice; Matter remanded for affording opportunity of
       hearing to party; Order of remand; Order of remand interlocutory;
       Curtail litigation.

                                      Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14661 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in WPC No. 28878 of 2023

                                  Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Surendra Kumar, Sr. Adv., Shrey Kapoor, Tarun Khanna.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav,
       Mangal Prasad, Prithvi Yadav, Ms. Radha Rajput, Ms. Sunita
       Pandit, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh, Ankur Yadav.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                             Judgment

       Rajesh Bindal, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved
       against the impugned order1 dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High
       Court2. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated


1    Writ C No. 28878 of 2023
2    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                            587

                            Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors.


       25.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.53 and the order dated
       15.01.2020 passed by respondent No.44. Vide impugned order, the
       High Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders had remanded
       the case to the respondent No.4 for consideration afresh after giving
       due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
3.     Briefly, the facts of the case, as available on record, are that an
       application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector
       seeking correction of map for Plot No.22. The same was dismissed
       vide order dated 27.05.1998. It was on the basis of a Commission’s
       Report available in the file showing that the appellant was in
       possession of Plot No.22 just above Plot No.23. The appellant
       was in possession of Plot Nos.22/1 and 22/2 whereas the private
       respondents were in possession of Plot No.22/3.
       3.1 The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents
           by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The
           same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2001.
4.     About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a fresh
       application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
       Code, 20065. The prayer was for correction of the revenue map.
       The aforesaid application was dismissed by the respondent No.4
       vide order dated 15.01.2020 while taking into consideration the fact
       that an earlier effort made by the private respondents for the same
       relief had been negatived. The aforesaid order was challenged by
       the private respondents before the respondent No.5, who vide order
       dated 25.04.2023 upheld the order passed by the respondent No.4
       as there was no good reason to reopen the issue settled long back.
       Against the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5,
       the private respondents filed writ petition before the High Court.
       The impugned order has been passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
       The High Court set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos. 4
       and 5 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4 herein for
       consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to
       all concerned.



3    Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
4    Additional Collector (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Pilibhit
5    For short “the Code”
588                                                             [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


5.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt vide
       impugned order, the matter has been remanded for consideration
       afresh and even thereafter, in case the appellant is aggrieved, he
       can avail of his remedies but still, in the case in hand, interference
       by this Court is required to stop multiplicity of litigation. It is a case in
       which possession of the parties was determined after consolidation.
       The revenue map was approved. Initially, the private respondents
       sought to raise an issue for correction of revenue map. The application
       was dismissed on 27.05.1998. The order was upheld by respondent
       no.5 on 04.09.2001. No issue was raised by private respondents
       any further. The order dated 04.09.2021 attained finality.
       5.1 About 17 years later, after ‘the Code’ came into force, the private
           respondents again filed an application under Section 30/38
           of the Code for correction of the map. The same was rightly
           dismissed by the respondent No.4. The order was upheld by
           the respondent No.5 in appeal. However, the High Court, on
           wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Code, had set aside
           the orders passed by the authorities below and remanded the
           matter. In fact, the jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Code
           could not be invoked as correction was possible only if there
           were any errors or omissions. That is not the case here. The
           private respondents sought to raise the same issue, which had
           earlier attained finality. It is their greediness to have opening
           of their plot on a wider road. The impugned order passed by
           the High Court deserves to be set aside.
6.     On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents
       submitted that against an order remanding the case for fresh
       consideration, this Court generally does not interfere. In support,
       reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Satyadhyan
       Ghosal and Others v. Deorajin Debi (Smt) and Another6. He
       further submitted that the High Court has rightly exercised the
       jurisdiction in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities
       below. Section 30 of the Code clearly provides that the Collector
       shall maintain the map and the field book and such an exercise
       has to be carried out annually. Hence, the argument raised by the
       appellant that the matter could not be relooked is contrary to the spirit


6    AIR 1960 SC 941
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                         589

                         Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors.


      of Section 30 of the Code. The principle of res judicata may not be
      applicable as was applied by the lower authorities. The High Court
      vide impugned order has corrected that error. Even if the issue is
      decided against the appellant after remand, he will have opportunity
      to avail his appropriate remedies. The impugned order does not call
      for interference by this Court.
7.    Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
      materials on record.
8.    The undisputed facts on record are that after the ownership and
      possession of the plots owned by the appellant and the private
      respondents were settled, the private respondents moved an
      application under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue
      Act, 19017 seeking correction of the map pertaining to Plot No.22/3
      owned by respondent No.1. The aforesaid application was dismissed
      by the Collector, Pilibhit vide order dated 27.05.1998. In the aforesaid
      order, the Collector had clearly recorded that Commission’s report was
      available on record in terms of which the appellant was in possession
      of plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2, whereas the private respondents were in
      possession of plot No.22/3 as owners. In fact, respondent No.1 - Ram
      Naresh had purchased the plot from Sanjay Jain and Bharat Jain,
      sons of Chandan Mal Jain. The vendors of the private respondents
      could have sold only that land which was in their possession and
      put the vendee in possession thereof. There was no cause of action
      with the private respondents to move application for correction of
      map once they had purchased the plot with their eyes wide open
      knowing the location thereof. The order also records that a report
      was sought from the Regional Naib Tehsildar who had submitted
      his report dated 21.08.1997. Nazari map was attached with the
      report as document No.27/8. No objection was raised against that.
      Total area of Plot No.22 is 0.18 D of which 0.12 D is owned by the
      appellant and is registered under his name as Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2.
      Respondent No.1 had purchased 0.06 D land from Sanjay Jain and
      Bharat Jain, sons of Chandan Mal Jain. The aforesaid order passed
      by the Collector was challenged by the private respondents before the
      Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), vide
      order dated 04.09.2001, upheld the order passed by the Collector


7    For short “the 1901 Act”
590                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       recording that there was no error requiring correction of the revenue
       map as prayed by the private respondents. In fact, the effort of the
       private respondents was to get a new location of the plot purchased
       by respondent no.1, which was outside the scope of Section 28 of
       the 1901 Act.
9.     There is no dispute that the aforesaid order attained finality. Meaning
       thereby, the private respondents were satisfied with the fact that they
       did not have any right to get the location of the plot changed, which
       was purchased by respondent no.1.
10. More than 17 years later, after the Code was enforced replacing
    the 1901 Act, another effort was made by the private respondents
    to get the map corrected. An application dated 12.07.2018 filed by
    the private respondents was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide
    order dated 15.01.2020. As is evident from the aforesaid order, again
    investigation report was called from Naib Tehsildar who had sent
    his report dated 12.11.2018. The preliminary objection raised by the
    appellant that the private respondents were making an effort to reopen
    a settled issue, was also considered. Again, the respondent No.4,
    while examining the issues in detail, came to a definite finding that
    the private respondents could not be permitted to raise the issue as
    the same already stood settled in the earlier proceedings between
    the parties. The application was rejected. Not satisfied with the order
    passed by the respondent No.4, the private respondents preferred
    an appeal. The appeal met the same fate as the issue once settled
    could not be permitted to be raised again and again. The matter was
    dealt with by the appellate authority in detail.
11. With the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot purchased
    by respondent no.1 with his eyes open, the private respondents
    challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities before
    the High Court.
12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court has
    misdirected itself while dealing with the issues involved. The import
    of the Section 30 of the Code was misread and misinterpreted. For
    ready reference, Section 30 of the Code is extracted below:
            “30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book. –
            (1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed,
            a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                           591

                     Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors.


           and shall cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at
           such longer intervals as may be prescribed, all changes
           in the boundaries of the village or survey numbers, and
           shall also cause to be corrected, any errors or omissions
           which are, from time to time, detected in such map or
           field book (khasra).
           (2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the
           manner prescribed and revenue records including map
           and khasra shall be corrected accordingly.”
13. A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that the Collector is duty
    bound to maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book
    for each village. Any changes made therein have to be recorded
    annually or after such longer intervals as may be prescribed. The
    second part of section provides that the Collector shall also cause
    to correct any errors or omissions which are detected from time to
    time in any such map or field book. Use of word ‘also’ clearly depicts
    that the second part is in addition to the first part. It is in continuation
    of the same. Even otherwise, first part deals with maintenance of
    records annually or at such intervals as may be prescribed and
    recording the changes therein. It may include change of ownership
    on account of sale or purchase of land or of inheritance. Exchange
    of land can be another mode. The process of consolidation may also
    have effect on the revenue record maintained under Section 30 of
    the Code. The second part talks about errors detected and for their
    correction. It may be at any time.
14. If the facts of this case are examined, the issue regarding correction
    of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed by the
    private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was
    dismissed on 04.09.2001. The maps were already final. Respondent
    no.1 had purchased the land and his vendors could hand over the
    possession of the land which they owned and possessed. After
    purchase, effort made by the private respondents to get the revenue
    map corrected had failed. They could not be permitted to raise the
    same issue after a gap of more than 17 years. It was not a case
    where any error was found in the revenue record which deserved
    correction under Section 30 of the Code. Rather, the effort of the
    private respondents was to change the location of the plot purchased
    by them, which may be more valuable. This does not fall within the
    scope of correction as envisaged under Section 30 of the Code.
592                                                     [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


15. The impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be legally
    sustained.
16. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the private respondents
    was on the issue that in a case where the matter has been remanded,
    this Court does not interfere. In Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others’
    case (supra), this Court had opined that an order of remand being
    interlocutory, and the proceedings having not been terminated, this
    Court should not interfere. However, the view expressed in the
    aforesaid judgment will not detain us from recording that after going
    into the facts of the case, we find that the remand of the matter, in
    the case at hand, was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation
    of Section 30 of the Code which needs correction by this Court. This
    could have generated unnecessary further litigation.
17. We may also add that earlier view by this Court was that in case
    there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was
    to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party
    concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed. The
    idea is to curtail the litigation and not generate it. Any unnecessary
    remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which
    should be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgments of this
    Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others8; State of Uttar
    Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others9 and Krishnadatt
    Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh10
18. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The
    impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey




8    (1999) 6 SCC 237
9    (2021) 19 SCC 706
10   2024 SCC Online SC 493