Pyarelal (Dead) Through Lrs (I) Kailash Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
1 WP-1247-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 1247 of 2009
CNR No.: MPHC030045272009
PYARELAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS (I) KAILASH SEN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - GA for the respondents/State.
...................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 22/10/2026
Delivered on :28/10/2026
.....................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
pronounced/passed the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders 03-11-2008, 06-08-2007,
05-03-2005 & 26-02-2004 passed by the Board of Revenue, Additional
Commissioner Bhopal division, Bhopal and Collector Vidisha in case no.
Review1890/II/2007, Revision No. 566/II/2005, 77/revision/04-05 and
267/Suomoto/revision/2000-2001 respectively, whereby the petitioners'
claim in respect of the land in question was adversely affected and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
2 WP-1247-2009
consequential directions were issued regarding the revenue entries.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to have been
in possession and cultivation of the land in question for approximately 50
years, through their predecessors. It is their case that the land is not
Government land and that they have invested substantial amounts in
developing the same. They further contend that they have been paying land
revenue (lagan) and water tax in respect of the land. According to the
petitioners, the Collector initiated suo motu revisional proceedings after a
considerable lapse of time and passed the order impugned without issuing
any show-cause notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing. The
petitioners challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner,
Bhopal, and thereafter before the Board of Revenue; however, their
challenge did not succeed. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the exercise of suo
motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959, after an unreasonable delay is impermissible in law. It
is further contended that the petitioners were neither issued any show-cause
notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Collector passed the
adverse order. Learned counsel submits that, had an opportunity been
granted, the petitioners would have placed the relevant documents on record
and expressed their willingness to deposit the requisite stamp duty and fees,
as indicated in the Collector's order. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Mohammad Kavi v.
Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1998 (1) MPWN SN 26; Situ Sahu and Others v. State of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
3 WP-1247-2009
Jharkhand and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4918; State of M.P. and Another v.

Board of Revenue, Gwalior and Others, 2006 (2) MPLJ 580; and Ramwati v.
Commissioner and Others, W.P. No. 1494/2004, decided on 06.03.2009.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the
competent revenue authorities in exercise of their jurisdiction under the
applicable provisions of law. It is contended that the revenue authorities were
justified in examining the legality of the entries relating to the land in
question and that no interference is warranted in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the suo
motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959, could have been exercised after an unreasonable lapse
of time. In this regard, the petitioners have placed reliance upon the decisions
referred to hereinabove, which lay down the principle that even where no
specific period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisional
powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In Mohammad Kavi (supra) and Situ Sahu and Others (supra), the
principle that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time
has been recognised. Similarly, in State of M.P. and Another (supra) , this
Court considered the requirement of exercising suo motu revisional powers
within a reasonable period. The aforesaid decisions emphasise that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
4 WP-1247-2009
absence of an express limitation period does not confer an unrestricted power

upon the revisional authority to reopen concluded matters at any point of
time.
8. The petitioners have also relied upon the decision in Shaheed Anvar
v. Board of Revenue and Another, 2000 RN 76 , wherein the requirement of
issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing before proceeding
further in suo motu revision has been emphasised. The concerned authority is
required to afford the affected party an opportunity to place its case and
objections before it, including on the question as to whether the matter
warrants exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Such an opportunity cannot be
dispensed with when the proposed action is likely to adversely affect the
rights and interests of the concerned parties.
9. In the present case, the petitioners specifically contend that no
show-cause notice was issued to them by the Collector, Vidisha, before
passing the order impugned. The respondents have not been able to
demonstrate from the material placed on record that the petitioners were
afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the adverse order was
passed. The impugned action, therefore, suffers from a violation of the
principles of natural justice.
10. So far as the question of reasonable time is concerned, the decision
in Ranveer Singh and Others v. State of M.P., 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 , rendered
by the Full Bench of this Court, is also relevant. The Full Bench considered
the scope of exercise of suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the
Code and held that such powers ought to be exercised within 180 days from

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
5 WP-1247-2009
the date on which the revisional authority acquires knowledge of the

illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the proceedings of a subordinate
revenue officer. The Full Bench further clarified that the said principle
applies even where the land is alleged to be Government land or the matter
involves public interest.
11. It is true that Ranveer Singh (supra) was decided subsequently and
was not available when the proceedings in the present matter were initiated.
However, the decision explains the legal principle governing the exercise of
suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Code. The question of
reasonable time must, therefore, be examined in the light of the law laid
down therein, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
12. In the present matter, the respondents have failed to establish that
the suo motu revisional proceedings were initiated within the reasonable
period contemplated by the aforesaid Full Bench decision, calculated from
the date of knowledge of the alleged illegality or irregularity. In the absence
of material establishing the relevant date of knowledge and timely initiation
of proceedings, the impugned exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot be
sustained merely on the ground that no express limitation was prescribed for
exercising such power. The prolonged possession claimed by the petitioners
and the prejudice alleged to have been caused to them are also relevant
considerations.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained, both on account of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32655
6 WP-1247-2009
failure to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and the failure to

establish that the suo motu revisional jurisdiction was exercised within a
reasonable period. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders passed by the Collector, Vidisha, the Additional Commissioner,
Bhopal, and the Board of Revenue, as contained in Annexures P/1 to P/4, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
14. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
petitioners' ultimate entitlement to the land in question or on the merits of
their claim regarding the payment of stamp duty and other charges. The
question of the petitioners' rights, if any, shall be governed by the applicable
law.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu

NEETU
SHAS
HANK
Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e066bc6b5
8cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2ce, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063574, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=e60a9bbfc39e0ee500eaade1e0b3b8
565cb3a7dc9f5cd048197df0ff3149ae58, cn=NEETU
SHASHANK Date: 2026.10.28 18:23:35 +05'30'