ORDER

1. The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision No.2318- TWO/2012 whereby the order of Collector dated 28.6.2012 passed in suo motu revision No.09/2009-10 wherein the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Chanderi, District Guna dated 06.03.2001 in suo motu Revision No.24v-1/2000-01 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for recording the land in dispute as a Government land in the revenue records and thereafter, correct the revenue entries in the khasra and alongwith Patwari report be forwarded to it.

2. Brief facts leading to controversry are that one application under SubSections (1) and (2) of section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (''the Code'') was presented before the Respondent No.4-SDO by the present petitioners contending that land bearing Survey No.5/1 Min. admeasuring 4.000 hectares, out of 21.2 hectares, situated at village Lithora is in their continuous occupation since Samvat 2037 and on the basis of adverse possession, they have acquired bhumiswami rights and as on the notice issued by the State, they have deposited amount of penalty, therefore, they may be declared Bhumiswami.

3. The SDO vide order dated 6.8.2001 on the basis of alleged long uninterrupted possession of the petitioners, accorded the Bhumiswami rights. Prior to issuance of the aforesaid order, the statements of the Patwari were recorded and the report from the concerned Revenue Inspector was also called. Thereafter, the petitioners got the demarcation done of the said land. After approximately 09 years, the Respondent No.3- Collector taking the matter in suo motu revision issued show-cause notice to the petitioners and vide order dated 28.6.2012, the Collector passed the order and set aside the order passed by the SDO. Against the said order passed by the Collector dated 28.6.2012, the petitioners moved revision before the Board of Revenue which got dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.10.2013. Aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the Collector are against the settled principle of law, therefore, they are required to be set aside. It was further argued that taking of the matter in suo motu revision by the Collector is de-hors the principles of law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble apex Court in catena of its judgments, therefore, the impugned orders herein being perverse deserve to be set aside.

5. It was argued that after the amendment in section 57 of the Code if a dispute arises between a person and the State then the jurisdiction lay with the State Government and not with the Collector and therefore, the order passed by the Collector in suo motu revision was per se illegal.

6. In furtherance of his arguments, it was submitted that though the Collector in its order had mentioned the fact that the representation from the Additional Collector, Guna was received on 24.5.2003 but till 2010, no showcause notice was issued and there was no plausible explanation with regard to delay caused in issuance of the show-cause; thus, the suo motu revision suffers from delay and laches, therefore, the order passed by the Collector could not be sustained.

7. To bolster his submissions, reliance was placed in the matters of Ranveer Singh & Others v. State of M.P., reported in 2010 (3) JLJ 77 and Sharda Vihar Vikas Samiti v. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2012 RN 362 wherein the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the period of limitation in exercising the suo motu revisional powers by the Court, had observed that maximum 180 days would be the upper-ceiling of limitation for exercising the aforesaid powers and as admittedly, the suo motu revisional powers have been exercised