The power to review is a creature of statute and must be exercised in the manner specified by the statute. The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar challenging an order that is wholly without jurisdiction.

Hon'ble Mr. Alok Aradhe, J.

1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 28-1-2010 and 27-1-2010 by which the Collector in exercise of power under Section 51 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has reviewed the order dated 13-10-2008 and the order dated 6-10-2008 respectively. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petitions, the facts from W.P. No. 7416/2010 are being referred to.

2. The land bearing Khasra No. 362/3 admeasuring 0.795 hectare situated at Village Chaka, Tehsil and District Katni, was being used by the villagers for the purpose of cremation though the same was held in Bhumiswami rights. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid land vide registered sale-deed dated 29-12-2007 from its erstwhile owner. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for exchange of the land. On the application submitted by the petitioner an enquiry was conducted by Tehsildar and the enquiry report (Annexure P-2), dated 23-5-2008 was submitted. Thereupon a notice was published inviting objections with regard to exchange of the land. The Gram Sabha through the Gram Panchayat, Chaka also submitted the no objection certificate' for exchange of land in question. The Patwari submitted the report pointing out that the value of the land belonging to the petitioner is Rs. 4,12,053/-. The Collector vide order dated 13-10-2008 (Annexure P-4) allowed the application for exchange of land submitted by the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,46,800/-, i.e., difference in the value of the land of the petitioner and that of the land which was allotted to the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 198 admeasuring 0.30 hectare. It was further directed that the land, which is allotted to the petitioner shall be used for the agricultural purpose only and the petitioner shall not claim any compensation in respect of 0.100 hectare of land.

3. The Collector thereafter in exercise of suo motu powers under Section 51 (1) of the Code initiated the proceedings on 12-6-2009 for review of the order dated 13-10-2008 and by order dated 28-1-2010, order dated 13-10-2008 was reviewed and the amount deposited by the petitioner was directed to be refunded. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has visited this Court.

4. Shri R.L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 28-1-2010 passed by the Collector is ah initio void as no prior permission from the Board of Revenue was taken by the Collector prior to invocation of suo motu power under Section 51 of the Code. It has further been submitted that suo motu power was exercised by the Collector after inordinate delay. Since, the order is ab initio void therefore, the doctrine of alternative remedy would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Marketing Society, Karera, 1988 RN 45, Bhagwandas and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 1998 RN 415 and Biharilal Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (2) M.P.H.T. 115 (DB) : 2010 RN 124.

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submitted that the land bearing Khasra No. 362/3 was reserved for the purpose of cremation prior to 1956. In this connection, reference has been made to the document contained in Annexure R-3. It was further submitted that Tehsildar after conducting the enquiry vide order dated 5-7-2010 had struck out the name of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from the revenue record therefore, no title was conveyed to the petitioner. The application was filed with ulterior motive to grab the valuable land of the Government bearing Khasra No. 198 situate near National Highway No. 7. It was also submitted that since, the Collector who had passed the order on 13-10-2008 had ini