( 1. ) THE petitioner who was owner of certain land in Survey No. 3056/30, Village Gohad, moved an application for exchange of his land with land bearing Survey No. 911. The reason for making such an application was sentimental values attached to the said land by the petitioner, because his father was cremated in the said land. The petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior who vide Annexure P-6 dated 17-12-1990 directed the petitioner to make proper application before the Collector, Bhind. Accordingly the application was made and Collector directed SDO to conduct enquiry and submit his report, accordingly, the report was submitted by the SDO and on the basis of the same vide order dated 2-9-1991 Annexure P-3 exchange of land was permitted subject to the condition that petitioner deposits difference of value, accordingly, an amount of Rs. 12,500. 00 was deposited by the petitioner on 26-10-1992 and the land in question was entered in the name of the petitioner, since then petitioner is in possession of the said land.

( 2. ) AFTER a lapse of 7 years vide Annexure P-1 a show cause in exercise of power of suo motu revision under Section 50 of the M. F. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior, petitioner submitted his objection and thereafter filed the instant petition for quashing suo motu revision initiated by the respondent-Commissioner.

( 3. ) THE State has filed its return and it is averred in the said return that petition is not maintainable as the same is only against the show-cause notice and the petitioner should be directed to file his reply to the show-cause notice and he has a right to challenge the final order that may be passed by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that there were complaints to the effect that Collector in the case transferred the temple land accordingly letter Annexure R-4 dated 27-7-1998 was issued to the Commissioner directing him to exercise his power suo motu revision in the matter.

( 4. ) SHRI Vivek Jain for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Singh and Ors v. Randheera and Ors. , 1994 Revenue Nirnaya 392 and in the case of Pratap Singh and Anr v. State of M. P. , 1997 Revenue Nirnaya 219 and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, AIR 1997 SC 71, has submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present petition the powers of suo motu revision could not be exercised. It is pointed out that in fact this is a revision on the basis of certain complaints and cannot be termed as and suo motu revision accordingly it is submitted by him that as per provision of Section 50 Sub-section 1 (II) the application has to be presented within a period of 30 days and as the said period is over Commissioner cannot proceed with the matter. Even otherwise placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment it is submitted by him that suo motu revision after a period of 7 years is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforementioned cases.

( 5. ) PER contra Shri K. N. Gupta, Govt. Advocate and Shri N. K. Gupta, for intervenor have submitted that as there was serious complains with regard to transfer of the land belonging the temple the action of the respondents is proper and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

( 6. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record I am not inclined to reject this petition on the ground that it is against the show-cause notice this Court after hearing Counsel for the parties on 5-8-1999 has admitted the petition, interim order was also passed. In view of this I am not inclined to reject the petition at this stage.

( 7. ) THE question that requires determination is as to whether the Commissioner was entitled to proceed in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Reven