Section 30 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Explained: Supreme Court Bars Re-opening of Settled Revenue Map Disputes and Sets Aside Unwarranted Remand

Case Name: Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Others

Citation: 2025 INSC 1405

Date of Judgment/Order: 09 December 2025

Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Manmohan

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code permits correction only of clerical or factual errors in revenue records and does not authorize reopening of disputes relating to location or boundaries of plots that have already attained finality through earlier adjudication.

Summary: The dispute concerned a long-standing controversy regarding correction of a revenue map relating to Plot No. 22. The private respondents had earlier sought correction of the map under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. Their application was rejected by the Collector in 1998 and the rejection was affirmed in appeal in 2001, thereby attaining finality.

After a lapse of more than 17 years, following the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, the private respondents again sought correction of the same map under Section 30 of the Code. The application was rejected by the revenue authorities, holding that the issue stood conclusively settled and could not be reopened. However, the High Court set aside these orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 30 of the Code. It clarified that the provision empowers the Collector to maintain revenue records and correct errors or omissions, but does not permit alteration of settled plot locations or reopening of disputes merely because the provision allows periodic maintenance of records. The Court observed that the private respondents were attempting to secure a more advantageous location for their plot, which fell outside the scope of permissible correction.

The Court also addressed the argument that remand orders should not ordinarily be interfered with. It held that where remand is based on a clear misinterpretation of law and would result in unnecessary and protracted litigation, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to intervene to prevent abuse of process.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s remand order and restored the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the dispute regarding correction of the revenue map had attained finality and could not be reopened under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.