ORDER :

1. All the writ petitions are heard and decided together by this common order as the similar question is involved in these petitions, as to whether the Collector is justified in registering suo-moto revision in the year 2022 with regard to transaction of the year 2011.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that petitioners came in possession of the subject land pursuant to purchase of land by them from the private respondents through registered sale deed. Collector registered a suo moto revision in exercise of power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Petitioners caused their appearance in the suo motu revision proceeding, submitted an application raising objections with regard to maintainability of the revision mentioning therein that the subject land of suo moto revision was registered in the name of private persons in the revenue records to which they purchased through registered sale-deed in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. After purchase of the lands, lands were mutated in their name and thereafter, the petitioners have sold the land to Jindal Steel & Power Limited. In view of the provision under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, Collector is not having jurisdiction to inquire into the veracity of the registered sale deed. In the inquiry proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the inquiry report was submitted on 14.02.2019 through which all the factual aspect was brought to the notice of the Collector and therefore, if any action ought to have been taken on report, action could have been taken only within six months. After long lapse of time exercise of power of suo-moto revision as provided under Section 50 can not be invoked. It is also contention that investigation is also being done by Anti Corruption Bureau in Case No. 50 of 2016 registered on 04.06.2016 and therefore, the parallel proceeding is also not permissible. Collector vide impugned order dated 24.04.2023 decided the objections raised by petitioners rejecting the same which made petitioners to file these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that private respondent No.4 sold the land subject matter of revisions, to petitioners through registered sale deed and based upon which name of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. After mutation of their names in the revenue records, petitioners have sold the land to respondent No.5. The transaction of the purchase of land is of the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 and immediately thereafter name was also mutated in the revenue records, therefore after lapse of about 8-10 years, suo-moto revision proceedings is not permissible. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that suo-motu revision can be registered within a period of six months. Collector has not considered the specific plea taken in the objection with respect to provisions under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act which only provides jurisdiction to cancel the registered sale deed executed in favor of any party. From the date of execution of sale deed, challenge to the registered sale deed is also barred by limitation. Order of the Collector rejecting objection with regard to maintainability of the suo-moto revision registered against petitioners is in contravention of the established principles of law. Jurisdiction of suo-moto revision after lapse of 8 to 10 years is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Wadi Kumar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, in Writ Petition No. 2963 of 2004, decided on 01.04.2015 and decision in the case of Mangal V. Board of Revenue & Ors., in WP No. 5060 of 2004 decided on 24.06.2023.

4. Learned counsel for respondents/State opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. They have deliberately concealed the material facts and made representation