ORDER

Since all the cases involved common question of law and there is commonality of facts, they are being decided by this common order.

For the sake of convenience the facts of M.P. 913/2019 are taken.

2. The petitioner has called into question the order Annexure P/3 passed by the Collector, District Umaria whereby the order dated 05.12.1998 passed by the Naib Tehsildar has been set-aside by exercising suo moto revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC. By the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2 the aforesaid order has been confirmed upto the Board of Revenue.

3. By the order dated 05.12.1998, the petitioner was granted Bhumi Swami rights over the land by exercising powers under the Adhiniyam

1984.

4. The order Annexure P/3 has been passed on the basis that the petitioner does not seem to be eligible person to get the land allotted for agricultural purposes because he does not fall in the purview of eligible persons under the Adhiniyam 1984.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner raised a singular ground that the allotment having been made in the year 1988, the suo moto revision could not have been entertained in the year 2004-05. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on Full Bench Ju