( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P/1 dated 21-4-2003 passed by Collector, district Shivpuri exercising powers of revision under section 50 of m. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and interference made in a order dated 17-8-1995 passed by Naib Tehsildar exercising powers under the Madhya Pradesh krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1984) petitioner has filed this petition.

( 2. ) PETITIONER claims to be a agriculturist and permanent resident of village mamonikhurd, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri (MP ). It is stated that petitioner is a landless person, has no means of livelihood, when the Adhiniyam, 1984 was incorporated, petitioner was in possession of land bearing Survey No. 785 measuring 1. 60 hectares prior to 2nd October, 1984. He had filed a application under the aforesaid Adhiniyam, 1984 seeking conferral of bhoomiswami rights on him in accordance to section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1984. It is stated that the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was processed by the Naib Tehsildar, tehsil - Karera, district Shivpuri in accordance with provisions of the adhiniyam, 1984 and after considering the same, a order was issued in accordance with statutory rules. After the order Annexure P/3 was passed on 17-8-1995, the certificate issued under Rule 6 is Annexure P/4. Grievance of the petitioner is that after about six years, respondent No. 4 - Komal filed a complaint before the Collector by filing revision under section 50 of M. P. Land revenue Code, 1959. The said revision has been entertained and allotment made to the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 dated 17-8-1995 and certificate granted vide annexure P/4 is cancelled. Inter alia contending that under the Adhiniyam, 1984, no revision is maintainable before the Collector challenge is made to the order passed by the Collector exercising powers of revisions.

( 3. ) SHRI Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the adhiniyam, 1984 is silent with regard to applicability of the provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, appeal and revision provisions contained under the said code and the Collector was not authorized to exercise jurisdiction under section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and therefore, it is stated that order passed by the Collector is unsustainable. It is further argued that revision entertained after delay of six years is unsustainable and in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Bharosi Sharma vs. State of m. P. and others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 189, it is argued that Collector should have refused to entertain the revision as it was beyond the period of limitation and delay was not properly explained. Finally, it was argued that respondent No. 4 has no locus standi to file the revision and therefore, interference in the matter by the Collector at the instance of respondent No. 4, is unsustainable.

( 4. ) REFUTING the aforesaid contentions and inviting my attention to the provisions of sections 44, 31 and 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/state argued that even though appeal or revision under section 44 was not maintainable, the provisions of section 50 pertaining to a revision is applicable to the proceedings held under the Adhiniyam, 1984, in respect thereof she invites my attention to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of m. P. vs. M/s Triyug Talkies and another, 1999 RN 223, accordingly, she submits that exercise of powers of revision by the Collector is proper.

( 5. ) AS far as the delay in entertaining the revision is concerned, Shri A. K. Nirankari, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 invites my attention to the observations made by the Collector in para 4 of the impugned order and submitted that as mandatory provisions of issuance notice and