ORDER

Petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by Collector, Gwalior in Case No.1/11-12/Suo Motu Revision titled as State of M.P. Vs. Shriniwas & Others, in and by, which learned Collector set aside the order dated 23.11.2010 (correction of record). Thereafter, mutation order dated 10.4.2011 passed by Additional Tahsildar in mutation register No.8 dated 20.3.2011 on the basis of illegal sale-deed.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Government Advocate appearing for State and perused the record.

3. Main submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that originally the plot No.413, 414 and 416 total area 10.032 Hectare situated in village Dongarpur Tahsil and District Gwalior were recorded and owned by Ajmal Khan who was then Zamindar in the year 1940 to 1949. The Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 came into force w.e.f. 2.10.1951. In 1950, one Bhagirath Singh was cultivating the land under the cultivation of Akmal Khan and by virtue of Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, Bhagirath Singh acquired the right and since entry was made in the name of Bhagirath Singh and name of Bhagirath Singh was recorded in the column of Kabjedar in respect of survey No.413 and 414. Further in 1963, name of Bhagirath Singh was deleted from the land in question and it was recorded to Health Department. While Plot No.416 was recorded as Charnoi. When petitioner came to know about this fact, she moved an application for correction of entry before Additional Tahsildar and name of petitioner and other co-tenants, Shriniwas Singh, Mahavir Singh, Tahsildar and Jaswant were ordered to be recorded in Khasra in respect of suit property by order of Additional Tahsildar as legal heirs of Bhagirath Singh.

Thereafter, property was transferred by registered sale-deed in favour of M/s.

Tulip Associates.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that on the basis of complaint filed before Collector, Gwalior, matter was taken in suo motu revision and by the impugned order, Collector, Gwalior in suo motu revision, set aside the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Morar. It is further submitted that impugned order was challenged by the Shriniwas, M/s. Tulip Associates by way of Writ petition No.8685/2011 which was withdrawn with liberty on 22.7.2022. Thus, delay in filing the petition has been properly explained by petitioner.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that property was owned by State. On the forged entry, Naib Tahsildar/Additional Tahsildar recorded the land and property in the name of petitioner as legal heir of one Bhagirath. Just after land came in the name of petitioner and others, they immediately transferred it by way of registered sale-deed in the name of M/s.

Tulip Associates and after the transfer of property, petitioner did not remain owner of land. Thus, she has no locus standi to file the petition. Learned State counsel further submits that M/s. Tulip Associates along with Shriniwas filed Writ Petition No.8685/2011 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition but petitioner of that writ petition never filed petition. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submits that present petitioner was not party in the previous petition. She filed the present petition in 2022 while impugned order was passed by Collector on 11.11.2011. Thus, this petition is filed with a delay of about 11 years, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.

In counter reply/rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the respondents have raised the objection that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In this regard, it is submitted that impugned order passed by the Collector in exercise of suo motu revision was challenged by Shrinivas and M/s Tulip Associates by way of W.P. No.8685/2011 which