I.A. No.1879/2021 has been filed by Pradeep Kumar Upadhayay

seeking his impleadment as respondent No.4.

2 W.P. No.143/2021

It is submitted by Shri Yagyalk Shukla, counsel for respondent

No.4 that since the proceedings have been initiated on the complaint of

respondent No.4, therefore, he is a necessary party.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

appeal filed by Pradeep Kumar Upadhayay was rejected as barred by

limitation and the respondents have exercised suo motu power of

revision, therefore, he has no locus standi.

4.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties,

this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petition arises out

of suo motu exercise of power of revision, therefore, Pradeep Kumar

Upadhayay has no locus standi to get impleaded as respondent No.4.

5.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1879/2021 is hereby rejected.

6.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India has been

filed against the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by Commissioner, Rewa

Division, Rewa in RCMS No.0120/Appeal/2019-20.

7.

The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner claims to have

a small piece of agricultural land. According to him, he applied for

allotment of survey No.483 having area 0.40 hectares situated at Village

Jhala, Tehsil Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi. It is the case of the

petitioner that he and his ancestors were in possession of the land in

dispute and therefore, it was claimed that the land be allotted to him.

The case was registered. The statements of the villagers were recorded.

A report was called and a notice was published and after following due

process of law, order dated 21.01.2000 was passed under RBC IV.3.

The said proceedings attained finality and it was not subject to any kind

of appeal or revision.

8.

In the year 2017 one Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, who is having a

civil dispute with the present petitioner, filed an appeal against the order

3 W.P. No.143/2021

dated 21.01.2000 primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not a

landless person and the proceeding does not seem to be proper. The

S.D.O. by order dated 21.07.2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground of

limitation. However, recommended for suo motu revision and forwarded

the matter to the Collector. Acting on the said recommendation, the

Collector issued notice dated 29.11.2017 for initiating suo motu

proceedings. The petitioner challenged the said notice primarily on the

ground of limitation which has been dismissed by the Commissioner,

Rewa Division, Rewa by impugned order dated 20.11.2020.

9.

Challenging the show cause notice issued by the Collector on

29.11.2017, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

proceedings are hopelessly barred by limitation. The allotment was

done by order dated 21.01.2000. The Full Bench of this Court in the

case of Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and

others Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 4 MPLJ 178 has held that

the revisional powers can be exercised by the revisional authority within

a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality or

impropriety of any order passed or as to the irregularity of the

proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it. In the

present case, the show cause notice has been issued after 17 long years

of the order of allotment. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon

the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Joint

Collector Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D. Narsing Rao

and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 and submitted that where no

limitation is provided under the statue, then the power should be

exercised within a reasonable period.

10.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for

the S