ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioners/State Government are challenging the order dated 9.11.2015 passed by the President, Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior.

2. The land in question was personally granted to one Laxminarayan and had been recorded in his name. The family of the said Laxminarayan was also doing worship in the Laxminarayan Temple. Without there being any basis and competent order, on the land in question name of temple is added. Therefore, an application for correction of error was made to the Tehsildar and vide order dated 31.5.2005 the said mistake was corrected by the Tehsildar. The Collector in exercise of suo moto powers of revision, issued notice to the respondent, which was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 2.11.006 set aside the action of the Collector holding that the land in question has always been a private property of Laxminarayan and his successors and neither is of Temple nor of the Government (Nazul). The said order was challenged by the State Government by filing a writ petition No. 7505/2007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13.12.2007 by again holding that the land to be a private land. Against the said order the petitions/State Government has challenged the order by filing a writ appeal No. 674/008, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2008. Hence, the order passed in the writ petition had attained finality. Thereafter, the name of the successor Pandit Shyamsundar Trivedi was recorded. Thereafter, he sold the land to one Smt. Manju Khandelwal and her name was duly mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Smt.Manju Khandelwal sold the land to respondent/Shiv Enterprises and their name was also mutated. The respondent got various permissions and also diversion, which was granted after obtaining various NOCs.including NOC issued by the Tehsildar, Nazul etc. certifying the land is a private. Thereafter, the respondent has developed the said land and completion certificate has also been issued. That, the diversion order was passed, according to the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. 1439/2013 on 9.7.2013 and the respondent has deposited a huge amount of premium and land revenue and the said order is executed and implemented also. Thereafter, after lapse of more than 7 years of the decision of writ petition and writ appeal and after a lapse of 2 years of diversion order, the SDO issued a notice of suo moto review. This notice was challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 9.11.2015 has set aside the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/State have filed the present petition.

3. Learned Government Advocate appeared on behalf of the State submits that the Board of Revenue had erred in setting aside the notice issued by the S.D.O. He further submits that against the two orders of the review in respect of different proceedings could not have been compared to hold the subsequent proceedings being barred by resjudicata. He also submits that, the Board of Revenue had erred in holding that the notice and the proceedings initiated for the review of the diversion order is barred as the proceedings for review of the order of correction in revenue records was set aside with the liberty to initiate proceedings for the determination of the title in respect of the subject property. The Board of Revenue had erred in setting aside the said notice by applying the principles of res judicata.

4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the issue regarding ownership has been settled in revenue proceedings right from the Tahsildar, the Collector and the Board of Revenue. After the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well this Court the land was diverted for residential purpose after obtaining NOCs from all departments. He further submits that the order has been passed in the year 2015 and the same cannot have been reopene