The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable time, as interpreted in the context of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and established by the Full Bench and the Supreme Court.

Rohit Arya, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Collector, Datia dated 17/9/2007. By the aforesaid order, petitioner's Patta granted by the Naib Tahsildar on 10/4/1991 has been cancelled invoking suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (herein after referred to as the 'Code').

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that the Naib Tahsildar had awarded Patta to 69 persons. The aforesaid allotment of patta to 69 persons was subject matter of complaint. On report being furnished, the Sub Divisional Officer had registered an appeal. Thereafter, passed a detailed order bringing on record the violations of the provisions of Revenue Book Circular for grant of patta to as many as 69 persons and cancelled the order of the Naib Tahsildar. On revision before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, the revisional authority vide its order dated 24/12/2002 has found that there is gross irregularities and illegalities in award of patta to 69 persons, out of which 5 patta had been cancelled by the SDO and for the remaining 64 patta matter was remanded back to the Naib Tahsildar for enquiry, the Naib Tahsildar in his enquiry report has detailed the irregularities committed in grant of patta and thereafter the SDO has cancelled 64 patta also. But, the same was not found proper for want of jurisdiction, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the SDO to place the entire matter before the Collector for invoking suo motu revisional jurisdiction to scrutinize and decide the fact of award of Patta to as many as 69 persons in question with due advertence to the record. Accordingly, the SDO placed the entire matter before the Collector and this is how the Collector invoked the suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code.

3. Upon perusal of the order, show-cause notices were issued to all such 69 persons allegedly awarded patta by Naib Tahsildar. In reply thereto, it was contended that patta was awarded after due enquiry, physical possession was given, land records were corrected and Bhu-Adhikar Awam Rin Pustika was given to the patta holders, hence, under such circumstances suo motu revisional jurisdiction could not have been invoked after fifteen years. There is no illegality in the order granting patta and the proceedings deserve to be dropped. The Collector has quoted the report of the Naib Tahsildar in case No.78/A-6/88-89 dated 9/2/2007, wherein in respect of each patta justification for cancellation was detailed and reasonings assigned therein were made part of the suo motu revisional proceedings.

4. The order passed by the Collector dated 17/9/2007 has been impugned in this petition. It has been found therein that a detail procedure has been prescribed under clause 4(3) of the Revenue Book Circular, however, requirements were not fulfilled before granting patta, namely, comments of gram panchayat was not procured, advertisement was not published in accordance with the procedure, applications were not scrutinized, no comments were called from the patwari on each applications, no enquiry was held as regards domicile residents of applicants, no enquiry was made as regards entitlement of each family allotment of patta and how much land is in their possession, even persons who are the domicile of UP have been granted patta. Besides, the land has also been allotted in excess to the entitlement of the family. In view of the aforesaid, grant of patta by the Tahsildar was found to be in flagrant violations of the laid down procedure as contemplated under clause 4 (3) of the Revenue Book Circular, it was found apposite to cancel the patta and accordingly, the same was cancelled.

5. Apart from merits, learned counsel for petitioner raised the jurisdictional issue as regards limitation in the matter of exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdict