Any Unnecessary Remand By Higher Court Generates Fresh Round Of Litigation & It Should Be Avoided: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court remanding the case to the Additional Collector (Judicial) for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held, “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.”

Senior Advocate Surendra Kumar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S.R. Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An application was filed by the private respondents before the Collector seeking correction of the map for a Plot No.22. The same was dismissed 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. The aforesaid order was challenged by the private respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The same was dismissed. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a fresh application under Section 30/38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The prayer for correction of the revenue map was dismissed by the fourth respondent (Additional Collector) 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 Additional Commissioner (Administration), who upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector as there was no good reason to reopen the issue settled long back. Against the aforesaid orders, the private respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that with the idea to somehow get a better location for the plot purchased by the first respondent with his eyes open, the private respondents challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities before the High Court. “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”, it stated.

Referring to section 30, the Bench explained 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 the 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.

The Bench noted that the issue regarding the correction of the map had been settled between the parties when the appeal filed by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector was dismissed. The maps were already final. The first Respondent had purchased the land, and his vendors could hand over the possession of the land which they owned and possessed. The Bench thus held, “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.”

Finding that the impugned order could not be legally sustained, the Bench set aside the same and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1405)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Surendra Kumar, AOR Shrey Kapoor, Advocate Tarun Khanna

Respondent: Senior Advocate S. R. Singh, Advocates Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mangal Prasad, Sunita Pandit, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh, Radha Rajput, AOR Ankur Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment