SUVEJ SINGH versus RAM NARESH AND ORS.

SUVEJ SINGH versus RAM NARESH AND ORS.

The High Court misinterpreted Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and wrongly remanded the matter; because the issue of correction of the revenue map had been finally decided in earlier proceedings (upheld on 04.09.2001) and no error in the revenue record was shown that warranted correction under Section 30, the remand was unsustainable and the impugned High Court order was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Sujev Singh; Respondent: Ram Naresh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WPC No. 28878 of 2023
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, Correction of Revenue Map, Remand and Appellate Interference by the Supreme Court, Principles of Natural Justice, Finality of Orders and Reopening Settled Issues, Multiplicity of Litigation
Land Revenue Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interpretation of Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 Correction of Revenue Map Remand and Appellate Interference by the Supreme Court Principles of Natural Justice Finality of Orders and Reopening Settled Issues +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sujev Singh

Appellant

Ram Naresh and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WPC No. 28878 of 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court misinterpreted Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and wrongly remanded the matter for fresh consideration
  2. 2 Whether the issue regarding correction of the revenue map had attained finality in earlier proceedings and could be reopened after a gap of over 17 years
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an order of remand in the facts of this case

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court misinterpreted Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and wrongly remanded the matter; because the issue of correction of the revenue map had been finally decided in earlier proceedings (upheld on 04.09.2001) and no error in the revenue record was shown that warranted correction under Section 30, the remand was unsustainable and the impugned High Court order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court set aside
  • Appeal allowed