1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Collector in suo motu exercise of the revisiona1 power under section 50 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

2. The facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the land ad measuring 0.405 hectares situated at Khasra No.1 06/ka-3 was settled in the name of the respondent No.3 by order dated 7.11.1988 under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (here in after referred to as 'the Act of 1984). The petitioner by way of a registered sale deed dated 9.12.1998 purchased an area of one acre out of the aforesaid land From the respondent No.3. The petitioner started construction activity on the purchased land and he was issued show cause notice dated 9.3.2005 stating that the land has been sold to the petitioner in violation of the provision of the Act of 1984 and requiring him to appear in the proceedings taken up by the Collector.

3. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and raised preliminary objection on 17.11.2005 vide annexure P/3 as regards the maintainability of the suo motu revision proceedings taken up by the Collector under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code on the ground that such proceedings cannot be taken up after a lapse of a reasonable time.

4. The Collector by the impugned order dated 14.11.2005 rejected the petitioner's preliminary objection and passed a final order setting aside the order of settlement dated 7.11.1988 which was made in favour of respondent No.3 Dharmendra Kumar. A further direction was issued to lodge an FIR with the police against the respondent No.3 since he had fraudulently sold the land to the petitioner. Aggrieved with this order present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Collector could not have exercised the suo motu revisional power against the settlement order dated 7.11.1988 after a lapse of about more than 16 years. Such a power under section 50 of the Code is required to be exercised within a reasonable time.

6. He further submitted that the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection about limitation but while deciding the preliminary objection the Collector passed the final order on the same date without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the, Collector initiated the proceedings under section 50 of the Code immediately after getting the knowledge of the settlement order dated 7.11.1988, therefore, there was no delay from the date of knowledge. He further submitted that the order of the Collector is right since the initial settlement order dated 7.11.1988 in favour of the respondent No.3 Dharmendra Kumar itself was bad and also after settlement of the land the respondent No.3 in violation of sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1984 sold the land to the petitioner. Therefore, by a composite order the revisional authority has rightly set aside the order of the settlement dated 7.11.1988.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In the present case the suo motu revisional power has been exercised by the Collector under section 50 of the Code. Under section 50 revisional power can be exercised by the Collector either on his own motion or on the application made by any party. Section 50 (1) (ii) prescribes the limitation of 60 days for ma1ring the application for revision by a party. For exercising suo motu revisional power by the Collector no limitation has been prescribed and sub-section (1) of section 50 provides that such a power can be exercised by the Collector at any time.

10. The words "at any time" occurring in sub-section (1) of section 50 would not mean the time in infinity but it has been settled that such a power of suo motu exercise of revision