Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

The petitioner allegedly purchased the land situated in Survey No. 55/1/M-3 Rakba 0.470 hectare and 85/5 Rakba 0.627 hectare, from Harmukha by the alleged registered sale deeds dated 5.4.2008 and 15.1.2008. The petitioner received “Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika” from the respondents. The petitioner's case is that in the land records the name of Harmukha was recorded as Bhumiswami and there was no mention regarding any “patta”. The petitioner further submits that after purchase of land, petitioner filed mutation application before respondent No.4 Tahsildar. He was informally informed that the land purchased by the petitioner may have been “patta land”. At this stage, petitioner preferred an application to Collector for ratifying the transfer and validating the transaction as per Section 165 (6-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (for brevity, the 'Code'). The petitioner submits that this application (Annexure P/7) is received in the Office of Collector on 26.8.2008.

3. The petitioner at this stage filed present petition for a direction to take a decision on the application dated 3.1.2008 before Tahsildar for mutation and on application dated 26.8.2008 before the Collector for ratification of aforesaid sale transaction.

4. During pendency of the petition, the Collector passed its order dated 14.1.2010 by taking up the matter in a suo motu revision. By way of amendment, the petitioner challenged this order dated 14.1.2010 as well.

5. Shri Gaurav Sarin and Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner have raised following points to assail the impugned order:-

(A) The Collector took the matter in suo motu revision under the Code on 28.10.2009, which was barred by time. The impugned order dated 14.1.2010 is passed after 505 days from the date of application of petitioner to the Collector dated 26.8.2008. As per Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranveer Singh and others vs. State of MP and others, reported in AIR 2011 MP 27, it is held that suo motu powers could not have been exercised beyond a period of 180 days.

(B) The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong, as at the time of purchase of land there was no remark in the revenue document that it is a “patta land”. Support is drawn from (2007) 11 SCC 447 (Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and others).

(C) The application dated 26.8.2008 for ratification is not considered and dealt with, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 165 (6-b) of the Code and Collector was under a legal obligation to decide it either way.

(D) The transfer of land by Bhu Swami is after a period of ten years and thus, the sale transaction was neither fraudulent nor forged but legal and capable of ratification under Section 165 (6-b) of the Code.

6. Per Contra, Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, learned Government Advocate would submit that no relief is due to the petitioner in the present writ petition. He submits that in sale deed not a single word is mentioned regarding name of seller Harmukha showing him to be owner of the land on the basis of patta granted by the Government. In other words, learned Government Advocate submits that there is no mention of “patta land” in the alleged sale deed. Accordingly, this cannot be said that on perusal of this sale deed the Collector had gathered knowledge regarding the sale deed executed by a “patta holder”. It is the case of the State that when one Pushpendra Singh Sengar filed a complaint to the Collector with regard to transaction made between the parties, upon this an enquiry was felt necessary to ascertain the correctness and legality of the same. He further submits that the Collector on the said complaint of Shri Sengar ordered on 10.4.2009 to investigate the matter by Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.).

Accordingly, investigation was made and enquiry report was forwarded to the Collector. On perusal of enquiry report it was found that the land in question was gr