A.P. Sen, J.

This is an application of Khumansingh, Ex-Zamindar of village Mahu, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to quash and order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 20th March 1969, whereby it set aside an order of the Tahsildar, Pargana Basoda, dated 28th December l960, passed under Section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, in exercise of its(sic) suo motu powers of revision, on the ground that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order, as the application for correction of the entries was barred by limitation.

The facts have been stated by the Board of Revenue in great detail and we do not, think it necessary to repeat them here.

The decision of the Board of Revenue has been assailed before us on the following grounds:

(i) Under the definition of the term "Khudkasht" in Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, it does not envisage that there should be Cultivation of the whole field taken as an unit. Even if the field is partly under cultivation, the whole of it will retain its character as "khudkasht" Land of the ex-proprietor. A part of it even if uncultivated could not be resumed by the Government.

(ii) On a true construction of the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, it would be clear that emphasis was laid on the words "so recorded" in the annual village papers before the date of vesting, and inasmuch as the entire Khasra No. 1230 was recorded as "Khudkasht" in the Khasra for Samvat 2007, the whole land was saved to the Petitioner under that section. There is no difference in the scheme of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 and the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 and therefore, Khasra No. 1230 must be treated to be the Khudkasht of the Petitioner within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Act, following the view in Bindrawan v. M.P. State 1967 Revenue Nirnaya 109

(iii) The Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to invoke its suo motu revisional powers under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which, according to the view expressed in Mst. Asaf Jahan Begum v. Mst. Bashir Begum 1964 MPLJ 156: 1964 RN 89, had no application to the pending proceedings. The Code came into force on 2nd October 1959, when the proceedings under Section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 were pending. The Board of Revenue could, therefore, if at all, exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1969 SC 1297 while interpreting Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which was in pari materia with Section 39 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, stated that such powers had to be exercised within a reasonable time. The Board of Revenue, therefore, could not have, after a lapse of 10 years, set aside the Tahsildar's order.

(iv) Even otherwise, a change of view of law is not a ground for exercising suo motu powers of revision. The Tahsildar, by his order dated 28-12-1960, had allowed correction of the entries as prayed for under Section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, following the prevailing view of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Bharat, in Sukhlal v. Gyanbai 4. 1954 RN 34 and Harpal v. Mst. Radha 1954 RN 341 merely because it later changed its view, on a new construction of Section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. Such a change in view, would not, ipso facto, make the order of the Tahsildar a nullity nor furnish the Board of Revenue a ground for setting it aside in revision suo motu.

We are of the view that there is no merit in these contentions.

The schemes under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 and under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, were entirely different. For the sake of convenience we reproduce be