Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12941-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22663 of 2024 Petitioner :- Umar Mohammad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There appears to be a boundary dispute between two villages which fall in two separate and distinct districts namely Meerut and Baghpat. This was clearly noted by this Court while passing the following order on 04.10.2024 : "1. Heard Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that their agricultural land being Plot No. 1411 Laa, area 2.9720 hectare, situated in two villages namely, Village Panchali Buzurg, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut and Village Khaprana, Pargana Barnawa, Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat, have been unnecessarily subjected to repeated litigation, solely for reason of certain vested interests not observing the law. 3. Referring to the report of the S.D.M., Baraut dated 11.01.2022 (annexure-3 to the writ petition), it has been submitted that earlier demarcation made in the year 2016, clearly demarcating the petitioners' land has been violated. Thus, intervention has been sought that the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to issue appropriate directions to the revenue authorities to ensure that the petitioners' possession is not disrupted. 4. Before, we may consider the prayer any further, it appears desirable that a fresh demarcation of the petitioners' land lying in Village Panchali Buzurg, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut and Village Khaprana, Pargana Barnawa, Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat be made by a joint revenue team of District Meerut, comprising of revenue authorities of Districts Meerut and Baghpat. Such team may be headed by an officer of the rank not below S.D.M. Let such fresh demarcation be carried out within a period of three weeks from today with prior notice to the petitioners, such that they remain present at the time of due demarcation to be made by the joint team to be nominated by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 5. Let the report of demarcation be made available to the petitioners such that it may be placed on record on the next date. 6. Put up as fresh on 22nd November, 2024." When the matter was taken up next, this Court passed the following order on the prayer of the learned Standing Counsel on 05.12.2024 : "Learned Standing Counsel states that he has received certain instructions from the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and on this basis has made a prayer for adjournment for two weeks to ensure complete compliance of the order dated 4.10.2024. He is granted two weeks and no more time to complete his instructions. Put up this matter as fresh after two weeks." When the matter is taken up today, instructions are obtained from the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which is placed before this Court. As per the Commissioner, there is an apparent overlapping within the boundary limits of the two aforesaid villages and that a proclamation would be warranted in terms of Sections 48 and 49 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 48 of the Act refers to issuance of notification by the State Government for undertaking record operations over a particular area. Section 49 of the Act provides for appointment of Record Officers by the State Government and the powers of Record Officers are then enumerated in Section 50 of the Act. The respondents relying upon these provisions to contend that issue relating to overlapping of two plots, falling in two distinct villages, would require a fresh proclamation commencing the record operations under Section 48 of the Act. In the opinion of the Court, this view of respondents is wholly misplaced. It is undisputed that record operations in respect of the land have already been undertaken pursuant to the previous notification issued by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. It is upon conclusion of such record operations that a dispute has surfaced relating to boundary of two villages. Overlapping has been noticed with regard to certain plots situated at the boundary of the two villages. Such dispute can always be examined under Section 51 of the Act, which is reproduced herein under: "51. Decision of disputes. - In case of any dispute concerning any boundaries, the Record Officer shall decide such dispute in the manner prescribed in Section 41." The procedure to be followed for such settlement of the boundary dispute would be such as is enumerated under Section 41 of the Act. Since boundary dispute also relates to the land situated in two districts, the resolution of the dispute would be possible by higher revenue authority which would be the divisional Commissioner. In the circumstances, instead of referring the matter to the State Government for issuing of a fresh notification under Section 48 of the Act, concerns raised in the present matter can more appropriately be examined by the Divisional Commissioner by exercising his powers, referred to above. The matter cannot be kept pending for such reasons awaiting a fresh notification under Section 48 of the Act. Issuance of such notification would not be needed in the facts of the present case. A direction consequently is issued to the 3rd respondent to get the demarcation exercise undertaken and for such purpose, the statutory provisions of the Act would be resorted to. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction upon 3rd respondent to ensure that the boundary dispute is resolved in terms of the above deliberations, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order after issuing notices to the parties concerned. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 rkg Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad