ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1 dated 08.02.2016 whereby the allotment of land under Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984, has been set-aside by the Additional Collector District Umariya.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular ground to challenge the order that the powers of revision could not have been exercised under Section 50 of the MPLRC after lapse of so many years.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 have supported the order on the ground that the land was wrongfully allotted to the petitioner, hence, the authorities have not erred in passing the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. On perusal of the order Annesxure P.1 shows that the land was allotted to the petitioner under the Act of 1984 on 18.01.1996. None of the authorities of the State have carried out any subsequent scrutiny nor have pointed out any illegality in the matter of such allotment. After the allotment was made in the year 1996, a revision was filed by one Smt. Shanti Bai, who was said to be the Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the year 2010-11. Upon death of said Shanti Bai, the subsequent Sarpanch was impleaded as revisionist before the Additional Collector, who is now impleaded as present respondent No.6.

6. Upon perusal of the order Annexure P/1 it is seen that the contention of the present respondent no. 6 before the Additional Collector was that the allotment was wrongfully made in favour of the present petitioner and also that Gram Panchayat did not have any consent in such allotment. It is further apparent from perusal of the order Annexure P/1 that the revision was filed sometime in the year 2010-11, which was 12 to 13 years after the allotment order in favour of the present petitioner was passed in January 1996. It further appears from perusal of the order Annexure P/1 that respondent No. 6 did not file even application for condonation of delay and on such revision filed after a period of 12 to 13 years, after passing of the order impugned, thereafter the matter has been entertained and impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed against the petitioner.

7. From perusal of the order Annexure P/1 it seems that the Additional Collector has registered the case as suo moto revision though the revision was filed by Sarpanch but as there was a delay of 12 to 13 years the authority seems to have registered as suo moto revision.

8. There is no explanation shown by the then Sarpanch Smt. Shanti Bai for filing revision after a lapse of so many years. The Gram Panchayat must be having knowledge of allotment and even by perusal of the Annexure P/1 it is not shown that the revisionist before the Additional Collector came out with the case that the gram panchayat did not have any knowledge of allotment order dated 18.01.96.

9. So far as the limitation for exercising suo moto powers under Section 50 are concerned. The full Bench of this court Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 2010(4) MPLJ 178. The Full Bench in the aforesaid case has held as under:-

“36. Ex consequenti we hereby hold that in order to exercise suo motu power of revision envisaged under section 50 of the Code and looking to the scheme of Chapter V, it should be exercised by the revisional authority within 180 days from the date of the knowledge of the illegality or impropriety of any order passed or as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to it and it will not be justifiable to stretch it for any length of period even for protection of the Government land or public interest.

referred to us that what is the “irreparable loss”. Needless to say, dispossession itself amounts to irreparable loss al