Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a clear message: litigation cannot be stretched endlessly just because one party hopes for a better outcome next time. The bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan heard the long-running feud between Suvej Singh and Ram Naresh over a tiny piece of land in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, where a map correction request refused in 2001 tried to resurface again after nearly two decades.
The Court noted that the appeal deserved interference “to stop multiplicity of litigation.”
Background
The dispute goes back to old consolidation records. Ownership and possession had been settled:
- Suvej Singh held Plot Nos. 22/1 and 22/2
- Private respondents (led by Ram Naresh) owned Plot 22/3, after purchasing 0.06D land from Sanjay and Bharat Jain
A Commission and Tehsildar’s report had confirmed this physical position as far back as 1997–98. The Collector rejected the buyers’ demand to alter the map in May 1998, and the Additional Commissioner upheld it in September 2001. The issue “attained finality.”
Then silence… for 17 long years.
Everything changed again in 2018, when the respondents filed a fresh plea under the new Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, hoping the updated law would open a new door for them. But both Collector and Commissioner again rejected their request calling it a revived battle already buried in 2001.
Court’s Observations
At the heart of the matter lies Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code a rule allowing correction of maps only to fix genuine errors or omissions in revenue records, such as changes due to inheritance, sale, consolidation, etc.
But here, the Supreme Court found no such error.
“The effort… was to change the location of the plot purchased by them… which may be more valuable,” the bench observed, calling the High Court’s view a “misinterpretation” of Section 30.
The judgment pointed out that reopening a settled case isn’t allowed simply because someone wishes for a wider road frontage or a better spot. Res judicata a legal principle preventing repetitive litigation applies squarely here.
The Court also questioned the High Court’s remand order:
“Any unnecessary remand… generates fresh round of litigation, which should be avoided.”
Old jurisprudence encouraged remand whenever hearings seemed incomplete. But the Court said modern thinking must focus on reducing fresh disputes, not creating new ones.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Suvej Singh’s appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s remand order bringing closure to a matter that should have ended many years ago.
Case Title: Suvaj Singh vs Ram Naresh and Others
Case Number:-SLP(C) No.1681 of 2024
