The judgment established the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and highlighted the limitations on the exercise of suo motu revision power under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

1. This writ appeal is directed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 27.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12435/05.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents raised following preliminary objections:

(i) That, before the writ Court Appellant herein Smt. Kamla Singh was not a party, so she has no locus standi to file this writ appeal.

(ii) Respondent No. 4 to 7 were not party before the writ Court, so that they have been wrongly arrayed as Respondents and the Appellant be directed to delete the names of the these Respondents.

(iii) That Writ Petition No. 12435/05 was decided by the Single Bench exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against which no writ appeal lies, hence this writ appeal may be dismissed.

(iv) It is also submitted that in Writ Petition No. 12435/05, order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 29.12.2004 was assailed by the State. The dispute was between State of M.P. and Respondent No. 1 Alka Singh. The Appellant herein has no concern with the aforesaid land and even if the order is not passed in favour of Smt. Alka Singh, the Appellant will not get the land and in case, aforesaid order is affirmed, Smt. Alka Singh is entitled to remain recorded as Bhumiswami. So the Appellant who was not party to the proceedings even before the Revenue Court has no locus to file this writ appeal.

(v) That the State has not preferred any writ appeal against the impugned order and the order has attained finality between the parties.

3. Shri Sheel Nagu, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is an effected party. The land which is involved in this case was the subject-matter of allotment of a retail outlet. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Alka Singh on the basis of such land sought allotment of a retail outlet. The Appellant raised some objections before the Grievance Redressal Forum of Indian Oil Corporation. As no cognizance was taken in respect of the said objections, the Appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 3686/04 and in the said petition, directions were issued to the Grievance Redressal Forum of the Indian Oil Corporation to decide the objections of the Appellant. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2004 in W.P. No. 3686/04, the Grievance Redressal Forum sustained objections and recommended for the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Respondents No. 4 and 5. However, subsequently the Indian Oil Corporation kept the matter in abeyance till the matter is decided by the High Court.

It is also submitted by Shri Nagu that the Collector, Chhatarpur detected fraud played by the predecessor of the Respondents No. 4 & 5. The land was earlier recorded in the name of the State and without any order of the competent authority, land was recorded in the name of Baldev and subsequently to his successors. The Collector after recording such finding rightly directed for correction of entry in the revenue record. Even if the Board of Revenue and Single Bench of this Court were of the opinion that such an order has been passed without issuing a show-cause notice to Respondent No. 1 then matter ought to have been remanded back, but the Board of Revenue and the Single Bench erred in setting aside the order of the Collector.

4. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 reiterated his contentions as stated hereinabove. It is also submitted by him that as the Appellant was not party to the proceedings, she has no right to challenge the order passed by the Single Bench. Only the State Government was entitled to assail the order passed by the Single Bench in a writ appeal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance to a judgment of this Court in Devi Prasad v. Kekse 1975 MPLJ 689. That the entries in the revenue record were recorded much before coming into force