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 Judgment in the case of Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 2010(4) MPLJ 178.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the State that as there were various procedural irregularities as well as it is indicated that the petitioner was disqualified to be conferred rights under the Adhiniyam of 1984, the authority has rightly passed the impugned order.

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

8. Upon perusal of the order Annexure P/1 passed by the Additional Collector, it appears that the original allotment was made in favour of the petitioner on 16.10.1988. The order Annexure P/1 does not state that how the illegality came to the knowledge of the Additional Collector, the proceedings seem to be initiated in the year 2004-05. This appears that the proceedings have been initiated almost 6 years after the bhumi swami rights were awarded to the petitioner.

10. In the entire bunch of these cases, the allotment orders have been issued between the years 1995 to 1998 and the impugned order shows that the proceedings were instituted by the Collector or Additional Collector in suo-moto revision after many years. This time period differs from case to case between 6 years to 10 years.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of 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 although the possession should have basis of some right accrued in a person by some statue or the law or may be on account of some order passed by an officer or authority under the Statute. The term “irreparable loss”cannot be defined since it varies from case to case. It may consist of so many factors which are required to be kept in mind. No exhaustive list can be given that what should be the irreparable loss, but some illustrations of irreparable loss we may quote hereinafter:-

“(i)the possession of the immovable property in question for a considerable long period