The central legal point established is that the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 51 of the MPLRC must be adhered to when reviewing and cancelling auction proceedings.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 14/11/2017, 24/11/2017 and 01/12/2017 passed by respondents No.1 and 2.

2. Respondent No.2 has issued a notice on 09/06/2017 for auction of certain lands for agricultural purposes for Agriculture Year 2017-18. Notice dated 09/06/2017 included the land which is subject matter of this petition. The land which is in question in this petition is the land bearing Khasra No.18, 19/1/, 21/1, 21/2, 29/2Ka, 23, 24, 25, 26, total area 21.98 acre situated in Village Ramna, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, Circle Raigaon, Distt. Satna. As per the auction notice dated 09/06/2017, the auction was scheduled to be held on 11/06/2017. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held on 11/06/2017 and made a bid of Rs.32,500/-. The petitioner bid being highest was accepted and the bid was turned down in his favour. As nobody made bid more than that of the bid of petitioner, the auction of the land for a period of one year from June, 2017 to June, 2018 (farming year) was closed in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, Panchnama was prepared.

3. The petitioner after being successful in the auction and pursuant to the auction proceedings took the possession of the land in question and he started farming on the lands. In June, 2017 the petitioner cultivated Soyabeen, Urad, Til, Arhar, on the said lands. Soyabean, Til and Urad were reaped and Arhar crops are still standing on the fields. After this, in the month of October-November, 2017, the petitioner has cultivated Wheat, Chickpeas (Chana) and the crop is still standing on the fields. On 18/06/2017 Patwari prepared a report and submitted before respondent No.2 that the land is auctioned in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has requested time to deposit the auction amount. The petitioner on 03/10/2017 paid Rs.7500/-and on 27/09/2017 paid Rs.25,000/-total Rs.32,500/-in the treasury as full and final amount of auction. In the meanwhile on 06/11/2017 respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.1, Tahsildar, Circle Raigaon, Tahsil Raghurajnagar for cancellation of auction proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner. On the application of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 referred the matter to the SDO, Raghurajnagar seeking permission to review the auction proceedings vide order dated 14/11/2017 under Section 51 of the MPLRC. It is submitted that even at this stage when the matter was referred to the SDO seeking permission to review auction proceedings which the petitioner has succeeded, no notice was issued to the petitioner and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and in most mechanical, arbitrary and predetermined manner, the permission was granted vide order dated 24/11/2017 by respondent No.1. On 01/12/2017 without issuing any notice/show cause notice to the petitioner and in clear violation of Section 51 of MPLRC, straightway impugned order was passed whereby respondent No.1 cancelled the auction made in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the cancellation of the auction is totally against the principles of natural justice and dehorse the provisions of Section 51 of MPLRC. Section 51 of MPLRC provides that any Revenue Officer can review his decision suo-moto or on application of any party interested. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, reported in 2000 R.N. 76 in which it has been held that the sanction for review by board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side. It is further argued by learned senior counsel that Tahsildar erred in entertaining the complaint because it was barred by limitation as provided under Section 51(1)(iii) of the MPLRC which specifically provides