ORDER

1. The petitioner (since dead now represented through legal heirs) has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.4.2011 passed by Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior in Review Petition No. 712-PBR/10, whereby the preliminary objections raised filed by him have been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:

(i) The M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act" for short) was enacted by the State of M.P. on 1.10.1960 to provide for imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings, acquisition and disposal of surplus land and matters ancillary thereto.

(ii) When the Ceiling Act came into force, there were many agricultural lands and forest land in the territory of erstwhile Dewas Senior State held in the name of petitioner's father; Tukojirao Puar Religious and Charitable Trust; Shri Krishnajirao Puar Religious and Charitable Trust; and Dewas Farm Project Pvt. Ltd. The rulers of Dewas Senior State also owned a palace called "Anand Bhavan Palace and land which were included in the list of private property as ex-rulers of the erstwhile Dewas Senior State.

(iii) The proceedings were initiated under the Ceiling Act against the petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain exercising the powers of the competent authority under the Ceiling Act, since the land was partly in Dewas District and partly in Ratlam District and the final order was passed by the competent authority on 18.1.1999 against the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 18.1.1999 under section 41 of the Ceiling Act before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal vide order dated 19.5.2006 holding that the order dated 18.1.1999 is unlawful and accordingly quashed all actions and proceedings against the petitioner initiated under the Ceiling Act.

(v) After the lapse of four years, the Board of Revenue has passed the order dated 22.5.2010 in exercise of suo motu power to review its own order dated 19.5.2006. The petitioner appeared before the Board of Revenue by raising an objection that in the Ceiling Act, there is no such provision of review. The provisions of revenue under section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) are not applicable to the authorities under the Ceiling Act. The petitioner also raised an objection about the period of limitation for exercising power of review.

(vi) The Board of Revenue has rejected the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and registered the case as suo motu Review 712/PBR/10-Dewas and issued the show-cause notice. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice in detail and also raised a preliminary objection that the review is not maintainable. On 22.9.2010, the petitioner filed the additional reply as well as written arguments on 22.12.2010. Vide order dated 29.4.2011, the Board of Revenue has disallowed the preliminary objections by holding that under section 51 of MPLRC the review is maintainable and fixed the case for final arguments. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to consider the well established principle of law that judicial or quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred upon it by the statute. The Board of Revenue has exercised the power of review under the Ceiling Act in which there is no such provision for review like section 51 of the MPLRC. Even if the Board of Revenue has borrowed the provision of section 51 of MPLRC in order to exercise the power of review, such review is maintainable only against the order passed under the MPLRC subject to sections 44 and 50 of the MPLRC. There is limitation prescribed under the MPLRC for exercising the power of review. Assuming without admitting that the or