HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [A.F.R.] LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1003912 of 2005 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 19.4.2005 and 9.2.2019 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition) respectively with further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct the map of Gata No.471 as per Khatuani within a period specified by this Court. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is transferable right of Khata No.163/ Gata No.471, area 2 bigha, 2 bishwa, 17 bishwansi, on which the petitioner is using the land for agricultural purpose which was made available to the petitioner during the course of consolidation proceedings. On measurement as per the Khatuani, the land was found short, therefore an application was moved by the petitioner to correct the map in accordance with the Khatauni. During the course of consolidation proceeding, Gata No.471 was measured in presence of Lekhpal and Gata No.471 during course of measurement was found short. Upon knowing the fact in regard to Gata No.471 to be short, the petitioner moved an application under Section 28 and a case was registered as Case No.151/4 before the respondent no.2, on which Naib Tehsildar, Akbarganj, on spot inspection, submitted a report before the respondent no.2 on 18.8.1991. Respondent no.2, taking into notice of the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar on 18.8.1991 and ignoring the report, rejected suit filed by the petitioner vide order dated 9.2.1999, against which the petitioner filed Revision No.1116 under Section 219 U.P. Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad which has also been rejected vide order dated 16.4.2005. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On bare perusal of the order passed by the respondent no.2, it is evident that he has taken notice of the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, but nowhere considered the same and rejected the suit filed by the petitioner. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.P.Maurya, Mukul Misra, Ninnie Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Azad Khan, R.N.Gupta Jhinku .....Petitioner(s) Apar Ayuktprashashan Faizabad Mandal And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Revisional Court has also failed to appreciate the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991 and has also rejected the claim set up by the petitioner. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to non- consideration of the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. 6. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice was taken into consideration, but no finding has return on the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar on 18.8.1991 due to which the orders are per se illegal. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the report was taken into consideration and thereafter, the orders were passed, therefore the orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have perused the material available on record. 9. On perusal of the order of the respondent no.2, it is evident that he has taken notice of the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, but no finding has return nor it was taken into consideration while passing the impugned order and due to non-consideration of the report, the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside. 10. Revisional Authority has also ignored that the report was submitted which was taken into notice while passing the order by the respondent no.2 but that to was not taken into consideration while passing the order impugned, therefore the order of the Revisional Authority is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside. 11. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that due to non-taking into consideration the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, the impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and is liable to be quashed by this Court. 12. Accordingly, orders passed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 19.4.2005 and 9.2.2019 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 14. No order as to costs. September 15, 2025 GK Sinha WRIC No. 1003912 of 2005 2 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench