The exercise of suo motu power of revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, must be within a reasonable time, and the determination of reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-6-89 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in suo motu Revision No. 66/A-19/87-88 initiated under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

2. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner, being a landless person, had applied to the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 3, for grant of 0.04 acre of land out of Khasra No. 1139/1 under the provisions of the Code. The Competent Authority, taking into consideration the provisions of the Code, read with M.P. Gramo Me Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhumi (Vishes Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970, granted a Patta in favour of the petitioner. The said Patta has been brought on record as Annexure P/2.

3. After obtaining of the Patta, the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, constructed a house by spending a huge amount. While he was in the enjoyment of the said house, a notice to show cause was issued to him by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur indicating certain grounds why the Patta granted in his favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause before the Competent Authority contending, inter alia, that there was no illegality in the grant of the Patta as provisions had been duly complied with at the time of grant. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had spent a huge amount in construction of the house where he was residing. It was pleaded that the petitioner had spent about Rs. 67,000/- in the said construction. The Additional Collector, after hearing the parties, vide Annexure-P-1, came to hold that there had been non-compliance of procedure in granting the Patta, and hence it was liable for cancellation and, accordingly he cancelled the order granting the Patta. The Additional Collector had also recorded a finding that the land in question was the 'Nistar' land and, therefore, the Patta could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner.

4. Shri R. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid order, has contended that the exercise of suo motu power under Section 50 of the Code, almost after a decade, is unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner was given the benefit of a Patta in respect of 0.04 acres of land as he was a landless person. It is also submitted by him that by virtue of long lapse of time, the petitioner has spent a substantial sum for construction of the house, and though such a plea was advanced before the Competent Authority who was exercising power under Section 50 of the Code, there has been no delineation in regard to the same. It is contended by Shri Agrawal that though there is no limitation for exercise of power under Section 50 of the Code, the same power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.

5. Shri Gupta, learned Government Advocate submitted that as there has been flagrant violation of the rules and the petitioner has taken undue advantage by getting the Patta in respect of Nistar land, the same should not be allowed to be sustained, and hence the order passed by the Additional Collector does not warrant interference. It is also submitted by Shri Gupta that the period of 10 years should be treated as reasonable in the present factual matrix.

6. In this context, I may refer to the decision rendered in case of Usha Dev and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 MPLJ 353, wherein this Court has held that there is no bar of limitation while exercising power under Section 50 of the Code but the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time. I may quote with profit the following observations of their Lordships :-

"We have, however, no hesitation in accepting the submission of Shri Bhargava that power of revision suo motu contemplated under Section 42 of the Act can be, and has to be, exercised w