BEGHVATI Vs. COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by Collector, Haridwar and judgment and order dated 18.10.2004 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal whereby application moved by respondents No. 3 to 6 under Sec. 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to correct the revenue map (Shazra) was allowed and revision arising therefrom was dismissed. Undisputedly, during the consolidation operation in the village Dhareki Dara, Majahidpur, Pargana Mangalore, District Haridwar, respondents No. 3 to 6 were allotted chak/khasra No. 690 measuring 8 Bighas while petitioner, herein, was allotted chak/khasra No. 668 of 4 Bigha 1 Biswa 8 Biswansi while Khasra No. 669 was reserved for chak road; after consolidation operation was over, it was de -notified under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 9.9.1995; thereafter, on 17.12.1999, respondents No. 3 to 6 have moved one application under Sec. 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before Collector, Haridwar saying although Khasra No. 690 measuring 8 Bigha was allotted to them and they are in possession of 8 Bighas land allotted to them, however, in revenue map (Shazra), their area has been shown 2 less viz. 7 Bigha 8 Biswa 10 Biswansi and likewise, although petitioner, herein, was allotted Khasra No. 668 measuring 4 Bigha 1 Biswa 8 Biswansi, however, in revenue map (Shazra) her area has been shown as 4 Bigha 14 Biswa 4 Biswansi, therefore, revenue map (Shazra) should be corrected, as per possession of the parties on the spot; after spot inspection, learned Collector, was pleased to issue direction for correction of revenue map (Shazra) as per chaks/Khasra allotted to respondents No. 3 to 6; revision filed by petitioner was dismissed; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6 and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that had there been any mistake in the revenue map (Shazra), respondents No. 3 to 6 could have moved objection under Sec. 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer and after de notification under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, application under Sec. 28 of the Land Revenue Act is barred by Sec. 11 -A read with Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.