Madan vs Ratanlal
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
1 WP-9232-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9232 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030065522025
MADAN
Versus
RATANLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Parashar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Rishi Rajak- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Reserved on : 05.10.2026
Pronounced on :16.10.2026
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 06.01.2017 passed
by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 28.02.2011
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur, in relation to the disputed
agricultural land was set aside and the earlier order dated 15.09.1995 passed
by the revenue authority, directing allotment of the land in favour of
respondent No.1, was upheld. The petitioner has also sought restoration of
the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur.
The facts giving rise to the present petition, as pleaded by the
petitioner, are that land bearing Survey No.167, admeasuring 8 bighas and 7
biswas, situated at Village Mayapur, Tehsil and District Sheopur, was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
2 WP-9232-2025
allotted to him on 01.05.1989 pursuant to the recommendation of the
Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board. The petitioner claims that, pursuant
to the said allotment, he entered into possession of the land, made it
cultivable and continued to cultivate it as a Bhoodan cultivator. According to
him, the relevant revenue entries also reflected his name in respect of the
disputed land. It is further pleaded that, in the year 1995, respondent No.1
approached the revenue authorities seeking allotment of the same land. In the
proceedings initiated on the basis of his application, an order dated
15.09.1995 came to be passed by the Naib Tehsildar, whereby the allotment
in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the land was directed to be
allotted to respondent No.1. The petitioner contends that the said order was
passed without impleading him as a party and without affording him any
opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the order was passed without
jurisdiction, particularly in view of the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1992, by which the Madhya Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968, stood repealed. The petitioner has also
asserted that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and the disputed land could not
lawfully have been transferred in favour of a person who does not belong to
a Scheduled Tribe, having regard to the restrictions contained in the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. According to the petitioner, the revenue
authorities subsequently examined the matter pursuant to an inquiry
conducted on the basis of the report of the concerned revenue officials. The
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur, by order dated 28.02.2011, directed
deletion of the name of respondent No.1 from the revenue records and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
3 WP-9232-2025
restoration of the petitioner's name as Bhoodan cultivator in respect of the
disputed land. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The
Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2017, set aside the
order dated 28.02.2011, inter alia taking into consideration the delay in
initiating the proceedings. The petitioner contends that the Board of Revenue
failed to consider the jurisdictional infirmity allegedly affecting the order
dated 15.09.1995, the effect of the repeal of the 1968 enactment and the
statutory restrictions governing transfer of land belonging to members of
Scheduled Tribes. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks interference with
the impugned orders.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is contrary to law and the
material available on record. It is contended that the original allotment in
favour of the petitioner was made on 01.05.1989 pursuant to the
recommendation of the Bhoodan Yagna Board and the petitioner had
remained in possession and cultivation of the land thereafter. According to
learned counsel, the order dated 15.09.1995, by which the petitioner's
allotment was cancelled and the land was allotted to respondent No.1, was
passed behind the petitioner's back, without notice and without affording him
an opportunity to contest the claim of respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated
15.09.1995 is without jurisdiction, as the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna
Adhiniyam, 1968, had already been repealed by the Madhya Pradesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
4 WP-9232-2025
Bhoodan Yagna (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1992. It is argued that the revenue
authority could not have proceeded on the basis of the repealed enactment in
the manner alleged by the petitioner. Consequently, according to learned
counsel, the Board of Revenue committed an error in sustaining the earlier
order without examining the legal effect of the repeal and the competence of
the authority which had passed it.
It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the disputed land was
recorded as having been allotted to him as a Bhoodan cultivator and
respondent No.1, who does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe according to the
petitioner, could not have been permitted to obtain the land in contravention
of the restrictions imposed under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,
1959. Learned counsel submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer, after
obtaining the relevant revenue reports and examining the circumstances of
the case, had passed the order dated 28.02.2011 directing restoration of the
petitioner's name in the revenue records. The Board of Revenue, however,
set aside the said order without adequately dealing with the merits of the
controversy and the statutory provisions relied upon by the petitioner.
Learned counsel lastly submits that the mere passage of time could
not, by itself, validate an order alleged to have been passed without
jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore,
prayed that the impugned order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Board of
Revenue, as well as the order dated 15.09.1995 passed by the Naib Tehsildar,
be set aside and the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sheopur, be restored.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
5 WP-9232-2025
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has
failed to establish any ground warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In the return filed on behalf of
respondent No.2, the State has denied the allegations of illegality and
infirmity levelled against the revenue authorities and has prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the dispute concerns
competing claims over agricultural land and the orders passed by the revenue
authorities are required to be examined in the light of the entire sequence of
proceedings and the relevant revenue record. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is seeking to assail the order dated 15.09.1995 after a considerable
lapse of time and the subsequent proceedings before the Sub-Divisional
Officer cannot, merely by reason of their institution, justify reopening a
matter which had already attained finality. The State has relied upon the
order dated 30.01.1995, annexed with its return, and has contended that the
earlier revenue proceedings relating to the grant of the land and the alleged
violation of the conditions of the Bhoodan patta are material to the
adjudication of the present dispute.
Learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the petitioner
has not demonstrated any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue so as to warrant
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On these
grounds, dismissal of the petition is sought.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
6 WP-9232-2025
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, while opposing the
petition, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as he failed to
challenge the earlier order dated 30.01.1995, whereby, according to the case
set up in the return, the Bhoodan patta was granted in their favour was
cancelled upon the alleged violation of the conditions of the grant by the
petitioner. It is contended that the said order was never challenged by the
petitioner and had attained finality. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the concluded proceedings after an
inordinate lapse of time by relying upon the subsequent order dated
28.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any
satisfactory explanation for his failure to challenge the proceedings initiated
in the year 1995, particularly when the subsequent order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer was itself made after a considerable lapse of time.
Learned counsel contends that the mere assertion that the petitioner was
unaware of the earlier proceedings does not, in the absence of adequate
supporting material, justify reopening the dispute after such a prolonged
period. It is also urged that the petitioner has failed to establish any legally
sustainable ground for setting aside the order passed by the Board of
Revenue. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.
Upon consideration of the material available on record and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the controversy relating to the allotment of the disputed land had already
been considered by the competent revenue authority, which had passed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
7 WP-9232-2025
order dated 01.08.1989 in relation to the grant of Bhoodan patta in favour of
the petitioner's father. The said grant was subsequently cancelled by the Sub-
Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.01.1995. However, the petitioner
failed to assail the said order in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
law within a reasonable period, as a consequence of which the order attained
finality. In the aforesaid circumstances, the subsequent proceedings initiated
before the Sub-Divisional Officer, culminating in the order dated 28.02.2011,
were not legally maintainable, as the same, in substance, amounted to a
review of its own earlier order, which is impermissible in the absence of any
statutory authority conferring such power of review.
A perusal of the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, whereby a direction was issued for recording the petitioner's name in
the revenue records, makes it evident that the said order had the effect of
reconsidering the earlier order dated 30.01.1995 concerning the cancellation
of the Bhoodan patta. It is a settled principle of law that a statutory authority
cannot review or recall its own order on merits unless such power is
expressly or otherwise validly conferred upon it by the relevant statutory
provisions. In the absence of any such enabling provision, the Sub-
Divisional Officer could not have, by initiating subsequent proceedings,
effectively nullified the consequences of the earlier order or revived a claim
which had already been decided against the petitioner.
The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
earlier proceedings stood vitiated on account of the alleged non-issuance of
notice and that the order dated 15.09.1995 was without jurisdiction in view
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
8 WP-9232-2025
of the repeal of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968, has
also been considered. However, the petitioner has failed to establish, on the
basis of the material placed on record, any legally sustainable ground
warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the Board of
Revenue. In particular, no sufficient justification has been demonstrated for
permitting the petitioner to circumvent the consequences of the earlier order
dated 30.01.1995 by resorting to subsequent proceedings before the Sub-
Divisional Officer. The mere assertion of a jurisdictional defect or violation
of the principles of natural justice, without establishing a legally sustainable
basis for the relief sought in the present proceedings, cannot, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, justify restoration of the order dated 28.02.2011.
The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and cannot be invoked to
sustain an order passed by a statutory authority in excess of its jurisdiction or
to confer upon such authority a power of review which is not vested in it by
law. The legality of the impugned order is, therefore, required to be
examined in the light of the limitations governing the exercise of statutory
powers by the revenue authorities.
In the present case, the Board of Revenue, vide its order dated
06.01.2017, set aside the subsequent order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, taking into consideration, inter alia, the fact that the
dispute was sought to be reopened after a considerable lapse of time. This
Court finds no jurisdictional error, material illegality or perversity in the
approach adopted by the Board of Revenue warranting interference in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31553
9 WP-9232-2025
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the impugned order suffers from any infirmity of such a nature as would
justify the grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM