IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for permission from the Collector for the transfer of government land, as stipulated in Section 165(7-b) of the Land Revenue Code, and the need for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable time frame under Section 50 of the Code.

ORDER :

1. This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.12.2022 (P-1) passed by Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Revenue Revision Case No. 202110272200021 (14/A-21/2022-23) wherein invoking the suo-motu revisional power under Section 50 read with Section 165(7-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’) as respondent No. 6 Ramvilok had alienated the land by way of registered sale deed without the permission of the Collector in favour of the petitioner along with other respondents 7 to 17 was declared void and the Patta land was returned in favour of the respondent No. 6.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 32/6, area 0.03 hectare situated at village Semli, P.H. No. 11, R.C. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgaj (C.G.) by way of registered sale deed dated 11.03.2014 from Ramvilok(respondent No. 6). Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was duly entered in the revenue record by the competent authority. The aforesaid land was leased out to respondent No. 6 under the scheme of State Government, for issuance of the patta/lease. In Revenue Case No. 1529/A-3/1968/69, after due procedure, respondent No. 5 filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as other purchaser of the land with an allegation that the patta/lease was forged. Upon receipt of such complaint, respondent No. 2/Collector called for a report from the Tehsildar, Balrampur as well as SDO, Balrampur and after receipt of report, a suo-motu revision was taken up and mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner along with other purchaser was cancelled in view of Section 165(7-b) of Land Revenue Code. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, there is no limitation prescribed for taking suo-motu action, however, it is settled law that revenue authority can exercise suo-motu revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable period and the said discretion must be exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge, therefore, the impugned order whereby the mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner way back cannot be cancelled in view of Section 50 read with Section 165(7-b) of the Code, only on the ground that the owner has not obtained permission from the Collector. He would further submit that the aforesaid land which was leased out in favour of the seller and the patta was granted prior to amendment of the Land Revenue Code as the sub-section 7-b of Section 165 of Land Revenue Code was inserted vide Act No. 15/1980 and the same is effected from 24.10.1980. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ranveer Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 MP 27 to submit that exercise of suo-motu powers by revenue revisional authority where legislature has not fixed any period of time does not mean that it has unbridled powers to exercise them at any point of time, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period. He referred to Para 38 of the aforesaid judgment which was also referred by this Court in the matter of Wadi Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in Writ Petition No. 2963 of 2004, decided on 01.04.2015, at Para 15 of the said judgment. Para 38 reads thus:

“38.............The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under Section 50 of the Code 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. What should be the irreparable loss, it should be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn.

We have already mentioned hereinabove certain instances which can be said to be the “irreparable loss.”

4. Le