The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mirza Rizvaanur Rehmaan

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
1 WA-2535-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2535 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MIRZA RIZVAANUR REHMAAN
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for the appellants/State.
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj and Shri Ramrajya Singh Dangi, learned
counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed
against order dated 20/05/2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.476/2012 by which the order dated 24/12/2011 passed by Tahsildar,
Sironj, District Vidisha was set aside primarily on the ground that when the
Tahsildar had forwarded his recommendation for exercising his power of
review against the order dated 20.12.1989, no opportunity of hearing was
given by the SDO to the respondent.
2. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is
submitted by counsel for appellants that so far as the quashment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
2 WA-2535-2025
impugned order dated 24.12.2011 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sironj, District

Vidisha is concerned, under the facts and circumstances as well as the legal
position of law, the order appears to be correct. However, it is submitted that
once the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order is bad on
account of non-grant of an opportunity of hearing prior to granting
permission to review the order, then instead of quashing the proceedings for
once and all, should have remanded back to the SDO to consider the
recommendation made by the Tehsildar for seeking permission to review the
order dated 20.12.1989. It is further submitted by counsel for respondent that
whenever a fraud is detected, then in the light of judgment passed by Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (since dead through LRs
Kishori Singh) and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 (4)
MPLJ 178, the proceedings can be initiated within a period of 180 days from
the date of detection of such fraud and thus the dismissal of the review
proceedings on the ground of limitation is bad in law.
3. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
respondent. It is submitted that once the learned Single Judge has found that
the impugned order dated 24.12.2011 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sironj,
District Vidisha was bad on account of non-extension of an opportunity of
hearing by the SDO before granting permission to review, then no illegality
was committed by the learned Single Judge by quashing the order. It is
further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
proceedings on the ground of limitation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
3 WA-2535-2025
5. The first question for consideration is whether the proceedings of

review were barred by time or not. The Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Ranveer Singh (Supra) has held as under:
"38. Ab judicatio for the reasons stated hereinabove we hereby
answer the question referred to us as under:—

" T h e 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 to be the "irreparable loss."
6. Thus, it is clear that the proceedings should be initiated within a
period of 180 days from the date where the fraud is unearthed. From the
note sheet dated 28.02.2011 written by Collector, it appears that a direction
was given to conduct an inquiry into the ownership of the aspirant because
the aspirant had neither got the land diverted nor was having any colonizer
license. Even the colony was not developed, in spite of that 14 plots were
sold. Some trees were also found cut. Under these circumstances, it was
observed that a detailed inquiry is required after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the concerned persons.
7. It is not out of place to mention here that by order dated 20.12.1989,
it was directed by the Tehsildar that the name of Mirza Rizvaanur
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
4 WA-2535-2025
Rehman/respondent be recorded as Bhumiswami after deleting the name of

Mukhtarujamani Begum. Since the question of the title of respondent was
doubted by Collector, Vidisha, therefore, the inquiry was got done from Naib
Tehsildar, Circle 4, Sironj. The record of the case number 37/A-6/88-89, (in
which the order dated 20.12.1989 was passed) was also summoned and it was
found that the mutation was done on the basis of Hiba, whereas the person
who was alleged to have executed oral Hiba had never appeared before the
court nor his statements were ever recorded. Even the original affidavit
of Hiba was also not filed. The statements of the witnesses were also not
recorded and accordingly, the Tehsildar, Sironj was of prima facie opinion
that the order passed by his predecessor was not in accordance with law.
Accordingly, in the light of Section 51 (1) of MP Land Revenue Code, the
Tehsildar, Sironj forwarded the report to the SDO, Sironj for grant of
permission to review. On 21.06.2011 itself, the SDO, Sironj, granted
permission and ultimately, by order dated 24.12.2011, passed by Tehsildar,
Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha, in Case No. 11/A-6/11-12, the property was
directed to be recorded in the name of the State Government.
8. Instead of challenging the said order before the appellate authority,
the respondent directly approached this Court and by impugned order dated
20.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 476/2012, the order dated 24.12.2011 was set
aside on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given by the SDO
before granting permission to review. Thus, it is clear that only on
21.06.2011, this fact came to the notice of Tehsildar, Sironj, that the order of
mutation was passed without there being any material to show that Hiba was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
5 WA-2535-2025
executed in favour of respondent. Neither the original affidavit of Hiba was

filed nor the person executing Hiba was examined nor his statements were
recorded. Even there is no finding by the Tehsildar as to whether the
condition precedent for a valid Hiba were ever followed or not and whether
there was a public declaration of the intention of the person executing Hiba
or whether the possession of the property was accepted by respondent etc.
9. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that as the illegality came
to the notice of the Tehsildar, Sironj, for the first time on 21.06.2011,
therefore, the case in hand is fully covered by law laid down by Full Bench
of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). Accordingly, it is held
that the learned Single Judge committed a material illegality by dismissing
the impugned order dated 24.12.2011 on the ground of limitation.
10. The next question for consideration is that if the Court comes to a
conclusion that the principle of natural justice was violated, then whether the
entire proceedings must go or the matter should be remanded back.
11. Once the Court comes to a conclusion that the order under
challenge is bad on account of non-extension of an opportunity of hearing,
then instead of quashing the proceedings for once and all, should remand the
matter back to the concerning authority to pass a fresh order after extending
an opportunity of hearing.
12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
the learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake by holding that the
permission granted by SDO on 21.06.2011 without issuing any notice and
giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent was bad but instead of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22217
6 WA-2535-2025
quashing the proceedings for once and all, should have remanded the matter

back to the SDO, Sironj, to decide the question of grant of permission for
review after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Single
Judge is partially set aside and the operative part of the order i.e. paragraphs
23 and 24 are hereby partially modified as under:-
The SDO would consider the question as to whether the Hiba
was duly proved by the respondent or not and if the reasons for seeking
review are not found tenable, then the permission can be refused or
otherwise for granting permission, the SDO shall pass a reasoned order.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the SDO, Sironj, on 4th
of August 2026. No separate notice will be required to be issued to the
respondent. In case if the respondent fails to appear before the SDO, Sironj,
on 4th of August 2026, then it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say
in his defense and the SDO, Sironj, will be free to decide the question of
grant of permission to review without extending any further opportunity.
15. With aforesaid, present appeal stands disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
ar

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/24/2026
2:57:59 AM