New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, on December 9, 2025, delivered a significant judgment in the civil appeal titled Sujev Singh v. Ram Naresh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1405), setting aside an impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had remanded a land dispute case for fresh consideration. The apex court held that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, leading to an unnecessary reopening of a matter that had already attained finality.
The dispute centered on the correction of a revenue map for Plot No. 22. The record shows that an initial application by the private respondents (Ram Naresh and others) seeking a map correction was dismissed by the Collector on May 27, 1998, a decision that was upheld by the Additional Commissioner on September 4, 2001. After a gap of nearly 17 years, and following the enactment of the new Code, the private respondents filed a fresh application under Section 30/38, which was dismissed by the Additional Collector (Judicial) on January 15, 2020. This dismissal was later affirmed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) on April 25, 2023.
Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the private respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. On September 21, 2023, the High Court set aside the authorities’ orders and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector (Judicial) for fresh consideration.
Allowing the appeal filed by Suvej Singh (the appellant), the Supreme Court observed that the issue of map correction had already attained finality. The Court noted: “The issue regarding correction of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector was dismissed on 04.09.2001. The maps were already final.” The appellant had argued that the private respondents were attempting to reopen the same issue—settled decades earlier—motivated by “their greediness to have opening of their plot on a wider road.”
The Court analysed Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which mandates the Collector to maintain maps and field books and to correct any “errors or omissions” detected. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had “misdirected itself while dealing with the issues involved” and that the “import of Section 30 of the Code was misread and misinterpreted.”
Rejecting the contention that the apex court should not ordinarily interfere with a remand order, the bench clarified: “The remand of the matter, in the case at hand, was totally on the wrong premise and interpretation of Section 30 of the Code, which needs correction by this Court. This could have generated unnecessary further litigation.” The judgment stressed the judiciary’s obligation “to curtail litigation and not generate it,” relying on precedents such as State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.
The Court also traced the dispute’s history, noting that the private respondents had purchased the plot with their “eyes wide open,” fully aware of its location. The Collector’s initial order had clearly recorded the Commission’s report, and the Additional Commissioner had upheld it, observing that the respondents’ effort was “to get a new location of the plot purchased by respondent no. 1, which was outside the scope of Section 28 of the 1901 Act.” The Court held that the subsequent attempt under the new Code was merely an effort “to change the location of the plot purchased by them, which may be more valuable,” which does not fall within the scope of correction under Section 30.
Concluding that the respondents’ attempt was outside the legal framework governing map corrections, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s impugned remand order.
Case Details:
Case Name: Sujev Singh v. Ram Naresh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1405
Date of Judgment: December 9, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Rajesh Bindal, J. and Manmohan, J.
