The suo motu power of revision under Section 42 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 can be exercised even in cases where an appeal is available and no appeal has been filed. The State Government is entitled to furnish information to the Board of Revenue to facilitate the exercise of its suo motu powers, and such an application is not to be regarded as an "application" to invoke revisional power.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by two of us, sitting in a Division Bench, the following question has come up for the opinion of this Bench :"whether the State Government is entitled to furnish information to the Board of Revenue to act suo motu under Section 42 of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 though the State had not appealed against the impugned order and whether the Board was competent to exercise power suo motu on application filed by the State Government furnishing relevant information for exercise of that power?"

( 2 ) IT may be appropriate to state briefly the facts giving rise to this reference. An order was passed on 31-12-1975 by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, acting as the "competent Authority" under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, for short, the 'act'. The order was passed under Section 11 (6) of the Act holding that the "holder" (land-holder) had no surplus land as could attract the provisions of Section 12 for those lands to vest in the State in accordance with the provisions thereof. It was found by him that the "family" held 345. 64 acres of land of which 113. 87 acres were in possession of occupancy tenants and the entitlement of the family to retain under the Act an area of 246 acres having been established, no surplus could be declared. That order is Annexure A of the petition. Application (Annexure B) appears to have been filed sometime before 13-3-1979 on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In that application, certain facts were stated in regard to the said order dated 31-12-1975 and the Board of Revenue, for short, the 'board', was requested to exercise suo motu its power of revision to set aside that order. It was stated that the Competent Authority acted in clear violation of Section 4 (5) of the Act in allowing set-off in respect of an area of 113. 87 acres and that the entitlement otherwise also of the "holder" had been determined illegally, in violation of Section 7 (1) of the Act as Bapurao could retain only 54 acres and under Hindu Law, on partition of a joint family; daughter being not entitled to any share, Smt. Malvika was wrongfully held entitled to retain 64 acres.

( 3 ) IT appears that the instant petitioners were noticed on that application and their counsel entered appearance. He filed "written arguments" which form Annexure C of the petition. Therein, he raised contentions of facts and law dealing exhaustively with the submissions made in the application of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners, it appears, objected seriously against the prayer being allowed, submitting that the proceedings before the Competent Authority suffered no irregularity and the order passed by him was legal and valid. They also submitted that no action could be taken on the belated application.

( 4 ) BY the impugned order, passed on 15-4-1982, Annexure D, learned President of the Board of Revenue accepted the request of the State Government to act suo motu under Section 42 of the Act. It appears that counsel for the non-applicants (instant petitioners) was heard by him and the latter had raised a preliminary objection that the "holder" Bapurao Pawar being dead, the revision application was not maintainable. However, that objection apparently did not prevail as the learned President considered it necessary to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority on 31-12-1975 in the facts and circumstances of the case and directed that a fresh order shall be rendered in the proceedings. This view, he took after looking into the records of the case and reading the impugned order. He found that the Competent Authority had given no consideration to Section 4 (5) (ii) of the Act in regard to the set-off allowed in respect of 113. 87 acres of land as validity of Civil Court's decrees in regard to those lands had to be adjudged before doing so and that had not been done. In regard to the other contention of the State, he expresse