IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2842 of 2023 SMT. GANGA @ GANGABAI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Gopal Krishna Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt. Bhagyashree Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain whereby he has while exercising his suo motu revisional power under Section 42 and Section 32 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 set aside the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam by which permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 for sell of the land of respondent No.3 was granted and subsequently the sale deed was also executed on 11.07.2017.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 3/10/2023 passed in M.P. No.3679 of 2021 (Dinesh Kumar V/s. State of M.P. & Ors.) by Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby in identical fact situation the order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain was set aside. In the said order it was held by this Court as under :-

"9] From the record it is found that the agreement to sell the disputed land was executed by respondents No.2 to 5 in the month of February, 2018, and on 22/02/2018, the application under Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 was filed, seeking permission to sell the land before the competent authority. On 13/03/2018, a report was prepared by the Patwari pursuant to the application filed by the respondents under Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959. The advertisement was issued on the report of the Naib Tehsildar by the Sub Divisional Officer on 26/02/2018. The Additional Collector passed the final order on 24/02/2018 and 21/03/2018 filed as Annexure P/9, and the registered sale deed was executed subsequently on 26/03/2018, between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5. In the month of October, 2018, the Collector made a representation to the Commissioner, Ujjain Division alleging procedural irregularities in granting permission for sale of land in question, and to take cognizance in the matter in Revision under Section 50 (2) of the Code.

10] Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal ground that the Commissioner could not have taken the cognizance under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 after more than 180 days/6 months, as admittedly the order was passed by the Additional Collector on 21/03/2018, whereas the cognizance has been taken by the Commissioner on 20/11/2018, and the order has been passed by the Commissioner on 14/09/2021.

11] At this juncture, it would apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) in which he following question was referred for its consideration:-

“Whether in the case wherein an individual is not put to suffer any irreparable loss, exercise of suo motu powers after any length of period is justifiable in Law, more so, for protection of Government land or public interest.”

12] This question has been answered by the Full Bench in the following manner :-

“38. Ab judicatio for the reasons stated hereinabove we hereby answer the question referred to us as under :-

“The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under section 50 of the Code within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. What should be the irreparable loss, it should be considered on the facts, and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn.”

We have already mentioned hereinabove certain instances which can be said t