WPMS No. 507 of 2002 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the respondents is not present. Heard Shri B.D.Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The lower court rejected the Commissioner’s report on the ground that there is a mistake in the bandobasti map of 1964-65 and, therefore, unless and until, the bandobasti map is corrected, the Commissioner’s report has no evidentiary value and that the Commissioner can only survey the area after the bandobasti map was rectified. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, filed a revision which was allowed by an order dated 13th May, 2002. The Revisional Court held that the lower court has not indicated as to how bandobasti map was incorrect. No reasons has been assigned and further went on to hold that even if the bandobasti map was incorrect, the same could be shown by other evidence and, consequently, the Commissioner’s report should be accepted. On this basis, the revision was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside and the Commissioner’s report was confirmed. The defendant, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order, the Court finds that the Revisional Court was not justified in accepting the Commissioner’s report. If the bandobasti map of the year 1964- 65 is incorrect, the same can only be rectified by the revenue authority. The trial court has not given any reason indicating as to how the bandobasti map was incorrect. The Revisional Court fell in error and should have remanded the matter to the trial court on this aspect to re- decide the matter and give reasons as to why the bandobasti map was incorrect. In the light of the aforesaid, the Revisional Court order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The order of the trial court dated 30th June, 2001 is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to re-decide the Commissioner’s report. It is, however, observed that in the event the trial court is of the opinion that the bandobasti map of 1964-65 is incorrect in which case, the Commissioner’s report cannot be accepted unless and until the revenue map is rectified by the revenue authority. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.12.2011 Shiv