Khatiyan Area Versus Field Measurement
An amin is asked to verify a boundary dispute in village Dihri, Nalanda district. The khatiyan shows plot 412 as 0.32 acre and plot 413 as 0.27 acre. The current jamabandi is in the name of the plot 412 raiyat, but the field is cultivated by the plot 413 owner up to a line of new earthen pillars. The khatiyan map is at 1:1000. On the map sheet, plot 412 measures 46.0 mm by 31.5 mm on paper, but the paper has shrunk by 1.5% since printing; the assistant treats the printed scale as exact. A 30 m chain used in the field is found to be 30.12 m long when checked against a standard tape. The field measurement of plot 412 along the disputed side is 44.8 m; the map side measures 46.0 mm. The adjacent owner says the extra 1.2 m is survey error and wants it deleted from the record; the raiyat says the map is old and the field is correct.
1. Correct the map dimensions for 1.5% paper shrinkage, compute the map area in acres, and compare with the khatiyan area of 0.32 acre. What does the comparison prove, and what does it not prove?
Read the worked answer
Map area corrected for shrinkage
- Measured paper area: $46.0\times31.5=1,449$ mm².
- Paper is 98.5% of original linear size, so original dimension $=$ measured$/0.985$; area factor $=1/(0.985)^2=1.0305$.
- Corrected map area $=1,449\times1.0305=1,493$ mm².
- At 1:1000, 1 mm on paper = 1 m on ground, so 1 mm² = 1 m². Area $=1,493$ m².
- In acres: $1,493/4,046.86=0.369$ acre.
Comparison
The khatiyan area is 0.32 acre = 1,295 m². The corrected map figure is 198 m² (0.049 acre) larger, about 15%. This proves a numerical disagreement, not an encroachment. It could come from the old survey, map generalisation, shrinkage, a chain error, or actual occupation. The amin must not delete or add land on this comparison alone.
2. The field side is 44.8 m and the 30 m chain is 30.12 m long. Compute the corrected field distance and explain whether the 1.2 m difference from the 46.0 mm map side is real.
Read the worked answer
Chain correction
The chain is too long: true distance $=44.8\times(30.12/30)=44.8\times1.004=44.98$ m. The corrected map side is $46.0/0.985=46.70$ mm, i.e. 46.70 m at 1:1000. The difference is about 1.72 m, not 1.2 m.
Interpretation
A single side cannot establish an area, and the side measured in the field may not be the same line as the map side. The field distance is shorter than the corrected map side, which is the opposite of the adjacent owner's extra-1.2-m claim; that claim evidently uses the uncorrected printed scale. Before any conclusion, measure all sides and a diagonal, close the plot traverse, check for slope and chain alignment, and identify the actual boundary on the ground. Do not accept either party's arithmetic.
3. What should the amin do before writing the boundary report? Include the role of khatiyan, jamabandi and possession.
Read the worked answer
Before the report
- Identify the plot by khesra number and match khatiyan and jamabandi; note that the khatiyan is the record-of-rights and map, while jamabandi shows the current holding. Neither is a substitute for a field demarcation.
- Standardise the chain or tape, measure all sides and diagonals, close the traverse, and tie the plot to permanent references (masonry pillar, road, canal).
- Prepare a demarcation sketch showing measured distances, computed area, possession line, and missing pillars.
- Record statements of both parties and note the discrepancy; do not decide title or correct the record unilaterally.
- Refer the case to the revenue or circle officer for enquiry. The amin's signature certifies measurement, not ownership.