Anand Kumar vs Revenue Department

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
1 WP-7712-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7712 of 2018
ANAND KUMAR
Versus
REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Assudani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for State.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside
order dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P/11);
ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction mandating
respondents no. 3 and 4 to remove the remarks regarding non
transferability of the property of the petitioner from P-11 and B-I
maintained by the revenue department regarding Khasra No.
906/18 of village Kailod Kartal.
iii) Pass any other and further orders and or directions as deemed
fit by this Hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) Allow this petition with costs.

3. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order
dated 8.2.2016 passed by respondent no.2 is received by the petitioner on
20.3.2018 whereby the Collector under Section 50 of Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 has passed the suo motu order cancelling petitioner's
mutation and directing that petitioner's land be recorded as government land.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
2 WP-7712-2018
It is contended by petitioner by pointing out the factual aspect that one

Shankar Mishra was recorded as Bhumiswami of 0.805 hectares of land
comprised in survey No. 906/2018, village Kailod Kartal, Tehsil and District
Indore. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner purchased the
land from said Shankar Mishra on 23.8.2007 by way of registered sale deed.
On 13.12.2007, petitioner's name was recorded as Bhumiswami in Land
record. By drawing attention towards the sale deed which is annexed as
Annexure P-2 and revenue entry which is annexed as Annexure P-3, counsel
has contended that on 13.12.2007, the transaction is already recorded in land
revenue record. Thereafter the petitioner has paid the land revenue and the
land revenue records from the year 2007 to 2014 shows the name of
petitioner. It is also contended that on 21.3.2010 statutory permission is
granted to petitioner for construction of farm house. He has further submitted
that on 17.1.2014, Tehsildar has passed order for demarcation of the land in
question. On 8.2.2016, impugned ex-parte order was passed by respondent
No.2 and therefore, he has submitted that the proceedings before the
respondent No.2 dated 9.1.2015 and 2.2.2015 show that the notices were not
served upon petitioner hence paper publication was required to be done. He
further submits that in 2017-2018 the land revenue record shows remark that
land is non transferable and that the impugned order dated 8.2.2016 was
passed by the Collector after delay of more than 9 years as petitioner's name
was already mutated on 13.12.2007 after following the due procedure. He
has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Collector is
without competence, jurisdiction and passed after the expiry of limitation. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
3 WP-7712-2018
support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by the Division Bench in case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010(4) MPLJ 178 wherein this Court has
laid down that the Collector can inquire in any manner suo motu not later
than 180 days i.e. the limitation is 180 days. Learned counsel submits that in
the present case the impugned order is passed after expiry of approximately 9
years and that too without any opportunity of hearing to petitioner which is
in gross violation of principle of natural justice. He has further submitted that
the same law is further reiterated in Writ appeal No. 23/2016 in the matter of
Revenue Department Vs. Chaitanya Realcon Pvt. Ltd. decided on 22.4.2017
and the orders of Collector suo motu were quashed and set aside as it was
passed after delay of 5 years. He has further submitted that the petitioner
purchased the property comprised in survey no. 906/18, Patwari Circle No.
12, Tehsil and District Indore by registered sale deed on 22.8.2007,
thereupon the Tehsildar passed the mutation order on 13.12.2007, thus the
revenue authorities had the knowledge that petitioner is the owner of the
land and his name was recorded in revenue records. He has further submitted
that the petitioner filed the application of demarcation of land and order was
passed in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that on 21.3.2010
petitioner was granted development and construction permission for farm
house. He has further submitted that on 7.3.2018 petitioner got knowledge
from the adjoining land owner that the Collector has initiated the land
revenue proceedings claiming that petitioner has purchased the land which
was reserved for Chargaah (service land) on patta without seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
4 WP-7712-2018
permission from respondent No.2 under Section 165(7-b) of the Code,

therefore, his name from revenue record is deleted. He has submitted that no
notice was ever served upon the petitioner and the impugned order was
passed behind back of petitioner without following due process of law. He
has submitted that the petitioner has applied for certified copies of entire
proceedings and got knowledge that even in paper publication deliberately
petitioner's name was not mentioned and thus behind the back of petitioner
the orders were passed without following the principle of natural justice. He
has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed by considering the fact
that the authority has exercised the power of suo motu revision after delay of
10 years. He has further submitted that right to enjoy property is akin to
fundamental right protected under Article 300 of the Constitution of India
which cannot be taken away without following the due process of law. He
has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter
of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade reported in (1998) 8 SCC
1 and by referring para 15 of that judgment, the Court has power under
Article 226 of the Constitution and the Court should not relegate the
petitioner for alternative remedy.
4. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, has opposed the same
by submitting that there is no dispute about the legal submissions made by
the petitioner and by referring to the reply filed by State he has submitted
that the impugned order is passed and petitioner is having alternative
efficacious remedy against the impugned order under Section 50 of Code
and petitioner has not availed that remedy. He has further submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
5 WP-7712-2018
land is reserved for chargaah (seva land) and petitioner is not entitled to

bhumiswami right in respect of same land. Despite that, the petitioner
illegally recorded his name in the revenue record. He has referred to Section
165(7-b) of the Code and has submitted that petitioner was required to obtain
permission from respondent No.2 prior to purchase of the disputed land. He
has further submitted that respondent No.2 became aware of the fact that
petitioner's name has been wrongly recorded in revenue record as
Bhumiswami of the disputed land and requirements under Section 165(7-b)
of Code had not been complied with. The respondent No.2 has sent a show
cause notice to petitioner dated 19.1.2015 asking the petitioner as to why his
name should not be removed from the said revenue records. As the petitioner
did not respond to said notice or appear before respondent No.2 in person,
another show cause notice dated 6.2.2015 was issued by respondent No.2 to
the petitioner. Yet again no response was received from the petitioner.
Thereafter respondent No.2 got a notice published in the local newspaper
Dainik Bhaskar on 8.3.2015. He has further submitted that the petitioner
failed to appear before respondent No.2 and/or submit reply to said notice,
and therefore, respondent No.2 commenced proceedings under Section
165(7-b) of Code and issued the impugned order dated 8.2.2016 ex parte and
when petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing, the petitioner
cannot claim breach of principle of natural justice. In support of his
submission, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Mulayam Singh Vs. Budhwa Chamar
reported in 2002(2) MPLJ 480 wherein it has been held that any transfer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
6 WP-7712-2018
made in contravention of Section 165(7-b) of Code is void and will not

confer any title on the purchasers. He has also referred to the judgment
passed in the case of Murari Lal and others Vs. State of MP reported in 1994
MPLJ 378. Therefore, he has submitted that the revisional authority has
exercised revisional power suo motu whenever such illegality came to the
notice of the authority, therefore, there is no ground to entertain this petition
since petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy as well as on the merits
also no case is made out to grant any relief to petitioner. Therefore, he has
submitted that this petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also
considered the fact that initially one Mr. Shankar Mishra was recorded as
Bhumiswami of 0.805 hectare which was sold to present petitioner by
registered sale deed dated 23.8.2007. Thereafter petitioner got his name
mutated as bhumiswami in the revenue record on 13.12.2007. From the
record, it also shows that upto 2014, name of petitioner was shown in the
land revenue record. It also transpires that in year 2010, the statutory
permission was granted to petitioner to construct the farm house and in year
2014, the Tehsildar has passed order of demarcation and thereafter it seems
that on 8.2.2016 impugned order is passed by respondent No.2. Considering
this aspect and above chronology of event, it is admitted fact that the order is
passed after delay of 10 years.
6. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to paras 35 and 36 of the
judgment passed in case of Ranveer Singh (supra), which read as under:
35. It is the trite law that if no period of limitation has been
prescribed, the Statutory Authority must exercise its jurisdiction
within a reasonable period. What should be the reasonable period
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
7 WP-7712-2018
should be judged from this angle also that what is the nature of the
statute itself, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant
factors. The Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk
Producers Union Ltd. (supra), in Para 19 has held that the
reasonable period of limitation may be borne out from the
statutory scheme of the Act. The Supreme Court while considering
the various provisions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 in
Para 19 has held that looking to the scheme of the said Act the
maximum period of limitation provided in Sub-section (6) of
Section 11 of the Act is five years and, therefore, in those
circumstances the Supreme Court has held that as per the scheme
of the Act, the reasonable period should be three years. Since in
the present case, as we have noticed hereinabove, different type of
periods of limitation which are prescribed for exercising particular
right and liability under different chapters, looking to the aim,
object and the purpose of enacting the provisions of suo motu
powers 180 days of the period of limitation would be the
reasonable period and, according to us, for this another reason also
the same period should be the reasonable period to exercise suo
motu powers by the Revisional Authority from the date of coming
into the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the
proceeding having been done by the authority subordinate to it.
36. Ex consequenti we hereby hold that in order to exercise suo
motu power of revision envisaged u/s 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.

7. In the matter of Chaitanya Realcon Pvt Ltd (supra), the Division
Bench in para 36 has held as under:-
36. In the present case, admittedly, sale deeds were executed in
2007-08 and immediately thereafter various permissions were
granted by the statutory authorities including revenue authorities
and from those orders Collector came to know about the execution
of sale deeds by the persons who were conferred Bhumi Swami
rights much prior to 1980. Hence, in our opinion, he had no power
and authority to exercise the power of suo motu revision after a
period of 180 days from the date of his knowledge as he had
knowledge about the execution of sale deeds immediately after its
execution because all the statutory permissions by the revenue
authorities were granted through Collector. Thus, we incline to
allow the preliminary objection of the respondents by holding that
the Collector had no power and authority to exercise the power of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
8 WP-7712-2018
suo motu revision after a period of 180 days and Board of
Revenue rightly set aside the order.

8. In the matter of Mulayam Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench has
held as under:
It is not in dispute that no permission from the Collector was
obtained and the sale was made without the permission of
Collector. The respondent cannot transfer his land even though he
is declared Bhumiswami, without the permission of the Collector.
Transfer was made without such permission, so the appellants will
not gel any legal rights. In the circumstances, the Additional
Collector has rightly held that the sale was in contravention of the
provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code and is void. Mutation
effected on the basis of sale was set aside and the land was
directed to be recorded in the name of the respondent No. 1.
9. In case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
15. Under article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not
to entertain a writ petition. but the high court has imposed upon
itself certain restriction one of which is if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally
exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least
three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed
for the enforment of any of the fundamental rights or where there
has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the
order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the
virus of the act is challenged.
10. In case of Murari Lal (supra), it has been held as under:-10. It
has been, in the last, argued for the petitioners that though no time
limit has been prescribed for exercising suo motu powers of
revision, yet they should be exercised within a reasonable time.
For the said proposition in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghu Natha,
AIR 1969 SC at page 1297, has been cited for the petitioners. In
this regard, it has to be seen that it is a cardinal principle of law of
limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation starts
running from the date of acquiring the knowledge of the relevant
fact giving rise to the cause of action. In the present case, the
relevant lands were recorded in the name of a deity. The Collector
started proceedings as soon as the fact of alleged mutation in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
9 WP-7712-2018
names of the petitioners was brought to his notice. Taking action
"within a reasonable time" is a relative term. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, action was taken within a
reasonable time.
11. At this stage, it is relevant to note Section 165(7-b) of the MP
Land Revenue Code as well as Section 50 of the Code which are
reproduced as under:

Section 165 (7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1), [a person who holds land from the
State Government or a person who holds land in
bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of Section 158
or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State
Government or the Collector as a Government lessee
and who subsequently becomes bhumiswami of such
land, shall not transfer such land without the permission
of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector,
given for reasons to be recorded in writing.50.
Revision.
(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4)
and (5), -
(a)the Board may, at any time on its own motion or on
an application made by any party, call for the record of
any case which has been decided or proceedings in
which an order has been passed under this Code by the
Commissioner;
(b)the Commissioner may, at any time on his own
motion or on an application made by any party, call for
the record of any case which has been decided or
proceedings in which an order has been passed under
this Code by the Collector or the District Survey
Officer;
(c)the Collector or the District Survey Officer may, at
any time on his own motion or on an application of any
party, call for the record of any case which has been
decided or proceedings in which an order has been
passed under this Code by a Revenue Officer
subordinate to him;
and if it appears that the subordinate Revenue Officer -
(1) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by this
Code; or
(ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(iii) has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally
or with material irregularity,
the Board or the Commissioner or the Collector or the
District Survey Officer may make such order in the case
as it or he thinks fit.
(2) No application for revision shall be entertained -
(a) against an order appealable under this Code;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
10 WP-7712-2018
(b) against any order passed in second appeal under this
Code;
(c) against an order passed in revision;
(d) against an order of the Commissioner under section
210;
(e) unless presented within forty-five days from the date
of order or its communication to the party, whichever is
later :
Provided that where an order, against which an
application for revision is being preferred, was made
before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 the period
of limitation for presenting the application for revision
shall be as provided in the Code prior to the said
Amendment Act.
(3) The Board or the Commissioner or Collector or the
District Survey Officer shall not, under this section,
vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an
issue, in the course of proceeding, except where -
(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party
applying for revision, would have finally disposed of
the proceedings; or
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a
failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party
against whom it was made.
(4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of proceeding
before the Revenue Officer, except where such
proceeding is stayed by the Board or the Commissioner
or the Collector or the District Survey Officer, as the
case may be.
(5) No order shall be varied or reversed in revision
unless notice has been served on the parties interested
and opportunity given to them of being heard.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section all
Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to
the Board.]
12. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a

bonafide purchaser of the land in question by executing
the registered sale deed. Thereafter also the revenue
authorities have mutated the name of petitioner after
following necessary procedure in the year 2007 and
upto 2014 the name of petitioner was continued in the
revenue record. It seems that in the year 2015 the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
11 WP-7712-2018
authority has initiated proceedings pursuant to Section

165(7-b) of the Code. It also transpires that the notices
were issued but none of the notice was ever served upon
petitioner. Thereafter it seems that by way of paper
publication the proceedings were initiated exparte and
order was passed exparte. Therefore, it is an admitted
position that the petitioner has not given any
opportunity of hearing though the notice by way of
paper publication can be considered as a constructive
service in view of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC but
factually the petitioner was never served and was never
availed opportunity to defend his case before the
respondent No.2. Therefore, the order passed by the
authority is against the principle of natural justice and
without giving effective opportunity of hearing to
petitioner.
13. Considering the contentions raised by the
respondents that the land in question is chargaah
(service land) and cannot be transferred by way of sale
without any permission of the authority, it is required to
be noted that after purchase of land the petitioner has
applied before the revenue authorities on various
occasions for mutation, thereafter got the development
permission for construction of farm house and thereafter
also for demarcation and during this period the authority
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24485
12 WP-7712-2018
has not raised any objection.Therefore, in view of the

judgment passed in case of Ranveer Singh (supra) the
petition is allowed by granting the prayers made in the
present petition more particularly, as impugned action
of respondent authority can be considered arbitrary,
unjust, against the principle of natural justice and also
against the settled position of law and by quashing and
setting aside order dated 8.2.2016 passed by respondent
No.2 and also by directing the respondents No. 3 and 4
to remove the remarks regarding non transferability of
the property of the petitioner from P-II and B-I
maintained by the revenue department regarding khasra
No. 906/18 of village Kailod Kartal and pass necessary
order within 15 days from receipt of copy of this order
by updating the revenue record accordingly.
14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the
extent as indicated above.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
16:41:54