1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 8.11.2013 and 28.6.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior rejecting the review as well as appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner is also challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 29.3.2012 allowing the revision preferred by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and also the order passed in review dated 16.5.2012 filed by the petitioner setting aside the order of the Collector dated 2.6.2010. He is also challenging the order dated 23.9.2004 Annexure P-5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the application filed by the petitioner under section 113 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (For short ‘the Code’) for correction of the caste as “Rajput” rectifying the clerical mistake in the revenue record, was allowed.

2. After passing the order by the S.D.O recording the caste of petitioner as “Rajput” accepting his requests, one anonymous complaint was received by the Collector who called a report from the Tahsildar, which was received on 3.2.2007, however, relying upon the said report, the Collector passed the order on 2.6.2010 setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power of suo motu revision. It is to note here that after changing the caste, petitioner sold his property to respondent No. 1 on 5.11.2008 by a registered sale deed. After purchase, the order was passed by the Collector in exercise of suo motu power of revision on 2.6.2010, however, the respondent No. 1 as well as the petitioner both filed the separate revision before the Additional Commissioner. The stand taken by respondent No. 1 was also supported by the petitioner inter alia contending that the power as exercised by the Collector is beyond the prescribed time limit, and the findings recorded by him is not tenable under the law, however, the order of the Collector may be set aside. The Additional Commissioner passed the order on 29.3.2012 by which the order passed by the Collector exercising the suo motu power has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review before him, taking U turn from his earlier stand, but it was dismissed on 16.5.2012. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue holding that as per section 47(a) of the Code, appeal would not lie against the order passed in review. Against which, review petition was filed which was also dismissed on found no error apparent on the face of record. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the order of Additional Commissioner passed in revision and review and the order of Board of Revenue in appeal and review, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned senior counsel Shri A.K. Sethi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the estoppel against law do not apply. In case the transfer of the land of a scheduled tribe is prohibited, it cannot be sold by change of caste, in furtherance to the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. It is his further contention that even the stand of respondent No. 1 was supported by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner, it may debar him to challenge the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the Board of Revenue has not considered the provisions of section 44(3) of the Code by which order passed in review varying or reversing any order shall be appealable, therefore, rejection of appeal by the Board of Revenue is not on valid reasons. It is further contended that the Board of Revenue has not dismissed the appeal on merit, however, in case the appeal was not found tenable, opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to convert it into a revision because it lies before the same authority and to allow him to convert the claim on merit. In view of the said submiss