IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 25786 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. JITENDRA S/O LATE SHRI MAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR R/O VILLAGE GUMARA TEHSIL GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAMNARESHWAR S/O LATE SHRI BHOLARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR R/O VILLAGE GUMARA TEHSIL GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ASHOK SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MALKHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR VILLAGE GUMARA TEHSIL GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI R.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA THR. PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. UPPER COLLECTOR, BHIND DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PRAHALAD SINGH S/O SHRI JHANDA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, VILLAGE GUMARA TEHSIL GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified (BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAHA - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 while invoking suo muto revisional jurisdiction u/s 50 of MP Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code') after lapse of three years ignoring period of limitation as provided by the Full Bench in the matter of Ranveer Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (III) MPJR (FB) 347 as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. and Ors. v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and Ors. reported in (2004) 10 SCC 585 wherein maximum of 180 days has been prescribed to exercise the suo muto revisional jurisdiction from the date of the order and had cancelled patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the aforesaid order passed by the Collector is hopelessly barred by limitation as full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ranveer Singh (supra) had categorically held that suo-muto revisional powers u/s. 50 of the Code can be exercised by the authority within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge of illegality or impropriety or irregularity and since the said order was passed by the authorities/respondent which was well within their knowledge, therefore, the said exercise of powers are arbitrary and the suo- muto revision was not maintainable and thus, required to be thrown out at its very threshold on this count alone.

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the State Shri S.S. Kushwaha while Signature Not Verified referring to Section 50 of the Code as well as provision of the Revenue Book Circular chapter 5 clause 30 which deals with appeal, review and revision for the matters under Revenue Book Circular, contended that the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of MPLRC and RBC and the grounds which has been raised with regard to the limitation as well as on merits can very well could be agitated before the appellate/revisional authorities as the case may be and, therefore, the present petition in the wake of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not maintainable and accordingly, it is required to be dismissed.

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the legal provision of the Revenue Book Circular chapter- 5 clause 30 as well as Section of 50 of the Code as well as decision of the full Bench in the matter of Ranveer Singh (supra) as well as in the case of Rajkumar Brijender Singh (supra), this Court does not find any reason to go into the merits as there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to assail the order of Collector dated 23.12.2017 impugned herein.

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter the peti