Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
1 WP-26011-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26011 of 2021
RAMSWAROOP MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri P.C. Chandil - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
By invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"i). Impugned orders dated 28.9.2021 (P/1), 08.07.2010 (P/2)
&30.03.2010 (P/3) be set-aside.
ii) Order of Tehsildar (Annexure P/4) may kindly be up held and
the mutation done accordingly may also be upheld
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court, in facts and
circumstance of the present case, deems fit."
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the case are that the brother of the
petitioner had preferred an application for mutation u/S. 190 MPLRC before
Tehsildar on the basis of lease and possession. The learned Tehsildar after
issuing notice to the concerned party and upon the recording of statements
and consent of parties, allowed the said application vide order dated
30.09.1999. On account of personal grudge, a complaint had been made
before the Collector levelling certain allegations. On the basis of said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
2 WP-26011-2021
complaint, learned Collector directed for registration of a case under suo
moto revision. Without issuing notice to the petitioner's brother and the
without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, impugned order dated
30.03.2010 was passed by collector and the proceedings under s.176 were
directed to be initiated after quashing of order of Tehsildar. Since the
petitioner and his family were not aware of the proceedings, therefore, a
family partition was made including the disputed property. In the said
partition, disputed property fell in the share of the petitioner and therefore the
further proceedings were conducted by petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
order dated 30.03.2010, the petitioner preferred revision before learned
Additional Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2010.
The petitioner thereafter preferred another revision before Board of Revenue
which also received the same fate vide order dated 28.09.2021. Hence,
assailing the orders dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/3), 08.07.2010 (Annexure
P/5) and 28.9.2021 (Annexure P/6), the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Board
of Revenue, Gwalior exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned
order as during the pendency of revision, certain amendments were made in
Madhya Pradesh Land Revnue Code, 1959 in 2018 and by virtue of said
amendment, power to hear second revision has been abolished.
4. It is further submitted that the learned collector has passed the order
impugned dated 30.03.2010 by exercising its suo motto jurisdiction without
considering the fact that the present dispute relates to a private land and the
Collector cannot exercise said jurisdiction in matters relating to private land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
3 WP-26011-2021
It is for a simple reason that dispute between private parties is a lis in
between the parties and only the person having civil right as provided under
Section 9 of CPC and Article 300-A of Constitution can maintain an action
in respect to private land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the powers
to exercise suo moto revision can be exercised within a reasonable period of
time as is well settled in law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohammad Kavi Vs. Fatima Bai Ibrahim reported in 1997 (6) SCC 71 has
held that the suo moto powers of revision may be exercised within a
reasonable time i.e. one year. In the present case, the Collector District
Sheopur has exercised its suo moto powers of revision after a gap of 10 years
since the Tehsildar had passed the order on 30.09.1999. In a similar issue
decided by this Court in the case of Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of
M.P., reported in 1997 RN 219 and Brijnandan Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in 2004 RN 89 same view has been taken.
6. It is further submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and others Vs. State
of M.P., reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 in relation to Section 50 of the
MPLRC has held that the suo moto powers can be exercised by the revisional
authority within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of
illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any
revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is
Government land or having some public interest and it will not be justifiable
to stretch it for any length of period even for protection of the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
4 WP-26011-2021
land or public interest. In view of the aforesaid, he prays that the petition
may be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file
reply but the same are rejected in view of the fact that only legal questions
are involved in this case particularly as to whether the suo moto powers
under Section 50 of the MPLRC can be exercised by the revisional authority
after 10 years of passing of the initial order.
8. Since the present petition is pending since 2021 and the State
despite being represented has not prayed for filing of reply on earlier
occasions, as such this Court proceeds to decide the matter without reply.
9. It is further submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that no
illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Collector in setting
aside the order passed by the Tehsildar on 30.03.2010, hence, the petition be
dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. It is not in dispute that the brother of the petitioner had moved an
application for declaring him bhumiswami of the land in question u/S. 190
MPLRC before Tehsildar on the basis of lease and possession which was
allowed vide order dated 30.09.1999 and on its basis his name was mutated
in the revenue records. On a complaint filed before the Additional
Commissioner, suo moto powers of revision were exercised by the
Additional Commissioner whereby vide order dated 30.03.2010, the order
dated 30.09.1999 passed by Teshildar was set-aside. A Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
5 WP-26011-2021
and others (supra) has held as under:-
"35. It is the trite law that if no period of limitation has been
prescribed, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction
within a reasonable period. What should be the reasonable period
should be judged from this angle also that what is the nature of the
statute itself, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant
factors. The Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk
Producers Union Ltd. (supra) in para 19 has held that the
reasonable period of limitation may be borne out from the
statutory scheme of the Act. The Supreme Court while considering
the various provisions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 in
para 19 has held that looking to the scheme of the said Act the
maximum period of limitation provided in sub-section (6)
o f Section 11 of the Act is five years and, therefore, in those
circumstances the Supreme Court has held that as per the scheme
of the Act, the reasonable period should be three years. Since in
the present case, as we have noticed hereinabove, different type of
periods of limitation which are prescribed for exercising particular
right and liability under different chapters, looking to the aim,
object and the purpose of enacting the provisions of suomotu
powers 180 days of the period of limitation would be the
reasonable period and, according to us, for this another reason also
the same period should be the reasonable period to exercise suo
motu powers by the revisional authority from the date of coming
into the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the
proceeding having been done by the authority subordinate to it.
36. Ex consequenti we hereby hold that in order to exercise suo
motu power of revision envisaged under Section 50 of the Code
and looking to the scheme of Chapter V, it should be exercised by
the revisional authority within 180 days from the date of the
knowledge of the illegality or impropriety of any order passed or
as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer
subordinate to it and it will not be justifiable to stretch it for any
length of period even for protection of the Government land or
public interest.''
12. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the power of suo moto
revision could not have been exercised after a lapse of about 10 years. Only
on the basis of a complaint filed by a person who did not had any locus, the
Additional Collector had exercised suo moto powers of revision and had set-
aside the order dated 30.03.2010, which is not sustainable.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3289
6 WP-26011-2021
impugned orders dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Additional Collector as
well as the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner,
Chambal Division, Morena and the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Gwalior cannot be allowed to stand.
14. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.03.2010 passed by the
Additional Collector as well as the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and the order dated
28.09.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior are hereby set aside.
13. The writ petition is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
