1. By this petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar in suo motu Revision No.46-A/19 of 1994-95.

2. The following facts are unfolded :

“(i) A patta in respect to the disputed land ad-measuring 4 hectares was given by Naib Tahsildar to the petitioner on 6.11.1989.

(ii) Thereafter Naib Tahsildar on 27.5.1991 submitted report that under RBC chapter 4-3 clause 3(5) ex-army persons are entitled only to two hectares land and, therefore, the land in excess which is given to the petitioner may be cancelled;

(iii) The patta of excess area of two hectares given to the petitioner was cancelled and the same was allotted to one Prem Narayan Dubey;

(iv) A report on 25.5.1991 was forwarded by the Tahsildar to SDO Damoh;

(v) On 10.4.1991 it came into the knowledge of the Collector Damoh that the area where the Sand in question has been allotted has already been declared as urban area and, therefore, the land which has been allotted be cancelled;

(vi) The then Collector on 5.5.1992 requested the Additional Commissioner, Sagar that the orders passed by its predecessors dated 30.9.1989and 2.12.1991 may be taken in suo motu revision and may be set aside and also send the original record to the Commissioner;

(vii) On 28.10.1994 a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner; and

(viii) The Additional Commissioner after hearing the petitioner allowed the suo motu revision and set aside the entire order of allotment of the land in question which was granted to the petitioner 30.9.1989.

Hence, in this manner this petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner.”

2A. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from bare perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 26.8.2003, it is as clear like a noon day that on 5.5.1992 the Collector sent the matter to the Additional Commissioner with the entire record and thus according to the learned counsel it came into the knowledge of the Additional Commissioner in the year 1992 i.e. on 5.5.1992 that allotment of the land has been wrongly made in favour of the petitioner, but, the suo motu power of revision was exercised by the Additional Commissioner on 28.10.1994 when the notice was directed to be sent to the petitioner. Hence by placing heavy reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh since dead through LRs. Kishori Singh and others v. State of M.P., reported in 2010 RN 409 = 2010(3) JLJ 77 = 2010(4) MPLJ 178, it has been submitted that after such a long delay of more than two years, the suo motu power of revision could not have been exercised by the Additional Commissioner and it the most it should have been exercised within 180 days as held by the Full Bench. Thus, it has been prayed that by allowing this petition, the impugned order be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that, the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ranveer Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case because that decision pertains to the scope of section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code). However, the present case pertains to Chapter 4-3 para 3(5) of the RBC, hence, the said Full Bench decision is not applicable.

4. It has been then propounded by him that even if the Full Bench decision can be said to be applicable in this case the outer limit for exercising suo motu revisional power would commence from 5.5.1992, therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of suo motu revisional power conferred in RBC chapter 4 part 3 clause 30 (Kha) which has been, exercised by the Additional Commissioner can be said in any manner to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, on this ground, it is