The court affirmed that transactions predating the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code are not subject to its provisions, and the power of review cannot be exercised beyond the limitation period.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, whereby the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Collector, Barwani has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication.

2. The facts of the case in short are, as under: -

2.1 The petitioner is a registered owner of the agriculture land bearing Survey No.88 area of 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.). The predecessor of the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land from respondent Kalu vide registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1929 and placed in to possession. The said sale-deed was the subject matter of Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 (Kalu S/o Gulal v. Heeralal S/o Ramasa and Radhibai W/o Gulal). Vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1962 second appeal was dismissed and the title of the predecessor of petitioner was confirmed. Thereafter, their names were mutated in the revenue records.

2.2 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Barwani (M.P.) initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred to as the Revenue Code) on 17.02.1977, that Kalu was an aboriginal tribe and the land was sold to Heeralal, without permission from the Collector, therefore, such a transaction is void. Vide order dated 12.04.1983, the Sub Divisional Officer directed Hiralal to hand over the possession of the land in question to Gulal and Radhibai within fifteen days.

2.3 Heeralal challenged the aforesaid order by way of an appeal before the Additional Collector, Khargone. Vide order dated 31.05.1988, the appeal was allowed and the order of SDO dated 12.04.1983 was set aside.

2.4 Kalu approached the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore by way of appeal. Vide order dated 28.07.1994 the said appeal was dismissed and the matter was closed as the same was not challenged by Kalu.

2.5 All of a sudden in the year 2012, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.) again started proceedings under Section 170-B of the Revenue Code on the basis of the report submitted by the Patwari Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.). The Sub Divisional Officer suomoto registered Revenue Case No.04-A/23 of 2009-10 and issued notice to the petitioner and respondents Kalu. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 29.09.2012 directed that the petitioners to hand over possession of the land in question to aboriginal tribe Bholiya S/o Tantya, as legal heirs of Bholiya S/o Tantya, Kashiram S/o Kalu and their name be mutated in the revenue records.

2.6 Shantilal S/o Heeralal Mahajan challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated 30.03.2016 the Collector dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, Shantilal approached the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. Vide order dated 06.02.2018 the Board of Revenue has recalled the order dated 31.05.1988 as well as set aside the order dated 30.03.2016 and remanded the matter back to the Collector.

2.7 Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 06.02.2018, inter alia on two grounds firstly that suo moto revisional power has wrongly been exercised after a period of thirty years i.e. beyond the period of limitation; and secondly, the first sale transaction from Radhibai and Ladubai w/o Gulal aboriginal tribe took place before the Revenue Code came into the force in the year 1959, hence could not have been examined under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Revenue Code.

3. After notice, respondents No.1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of Kalu, filed the reply by submitting that originally Gulal was the owner of the land in question he had two wives Radhibai and Ladubai. Both of them executed a sale deed dated 09.04.1929 in favour of Seth Ramasa. At that time, the son of Ladubai i.e. Kalu was minor, hence minor shar