An application was filed by private respondents before the Collector seeking correction of a map for their plot. The application was dismissed. The order dismissing the application was challenged by the private respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was also dismissed. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a fresh application for correction of the revenue map. This application was also dismissed and the order was challenged by the private respondents. In the appeal, the order was upheld on the ground that there was no good reason to reopen the issue settled long back. Against the orders, the private respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. The High Court order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that 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. The maps were already final. They could not be permitted to raise the same issue after a gap of more than 17 years as this was not a case where any error was found in the revenue record which deserved correction. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court remanding the matter was set aside.

A 2-Judges bench of the Supreme Court held –

“17. We may also add that earlier view by this Court was that in case there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed. The idea is to curtail the litigation and not generate it. Any unnecessary remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others [(1999) 6 SCC 237]; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others [(2021) 19 SCC 706] and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 SCC Online SC 493].”.