Dr. Ganesh Ram Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
1 WP-18681-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18681 of 2022
DR. GANESH RAM JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Parasar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the order dated
18.10.2021 passed by the Collector, District Gwalior, in Case No. 02/2015-
16/Suo Motu Revision, whereby the Patta granted in favour of late Ram
Singh in Case No. 10/80-81/A-19 by order dated 19.06.1981 was cancelled.
Consequentially, the sale deeds executed pursuant to the said Patta were
declared null and void, and the land in question was held to be Government
land.
The short facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 60,
situated at Village Sasan, Tahsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, was originally
recorded as charnoi land. However, the land was cultivable (kabil kast), and
therefore, the competent revenue authorities allotted different portions
thereof to nearly fifty eligible persons after due demarcation and partition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
2 WP-18681-2022
(batankan). The present petition concerns only Survey No. 60/2 admeasuring

1.500 hectares, which was allotted to late Ram Singh by the Tahsildar in
Case No. 10/80-81/A-19 vide order dated 19.06.1981. Initially, a patta was
issued in Form-E and, thereafter, in the year 1985, Ram Singh was conferred
bhumiswami rights under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959, by issuance of a patta in Form-A. Thus, Ram Singh
acquired valid and lawful title over the land. After acquiring bhumiswami
rights, Ram Singh, during his lifetime, transferred different portions of the
land in favour of various purchasers through registered sale deeds. The
present petitioners are bona fide purchasers who acquired their respective
portions for valuable consideration. After purchase, several petitioners
obtained diversion orders from the competent authority, including orders
passed on 04.06.2016, permitting the use of the land for non-agricultural
purposes. Necessary building permissions were also granted by the Nagar
Panchayat on 30.09.2005, pursuant to which some of the petitioners
constructed permanent residential houses and are residing therein, while
others continue to remain in peaceful physical possession of their respective
plots, intending to raise construction as and when their financial
circumstances permit. Significantly, from the date of allotment in 1981, the
conferment of bhumiswami rights in 1985, and the subsequent transfers, no
objection was ever raised by any revenue authority regarding either the
validity of the allotment or the petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the
land. After more than three decades, a representation was submitted by the
Tahsildar, on the basis of which the Collector initiated suo motu revisional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
3 WP-18681-2022
proceedings by registering Case No. 06/2013-14/Suo Motu Revision. Upon

detailed consideration of the entire matter, the Collector dismissed the
revision holding that although the land was originally recorded as charnoi, it
was cultivable land and, therefore, the allotment made by the Tahsildar in
favour of Ram Singh was legal and valid. The Collector further held that the
grant of patta in Form-E, the subsequent conferment of bhumiswami rights
through Form-A in the year 1985, and the transfers effected by Ram Singh
were all in accordance with law. It was specifically held that the transfers
were not hit by Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code
and neither the allotment nor the subsequent sale transactions suffered from
any legal infirmity. Despite the aforesaid final adjudication, the Tahsildar
again submitted another representation before the Collector alleging
irregularities in the original allotment. Acting upon the said representation,
the Collector registered another suo motu revisional proceeding being Case
No. 02/2015-16/Suo Motu Revision. By order dated 16.05.2016, notices
were directed to be issued, and since Ram Singh had expired, notices were
ordered to be served upon his legal representatives. Subsequently, by order
dated 28.02.2017, the matter was referred to the Additional District
Magistrate, Gwalior, for a detailed inquiry. After conducting a
comprehensive inquiry, the Additional District Magistrate submitted a report
dated 22.08.2017 categorically concluding that the allotment made in favour
of Ram Singh was legal and valid, the conferment of bhumiswami rights in
1985 was lawful, and the subsequent transfers made by Ram Singh were not
prohibited under any provision of law. The inquiry report further opined that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
4 WP-18681-2022
no action could legally be taken against the legal heirs of Ram Singh or the

subsequent purchasers. Notwithstanding these findings, the Collector, by the
impugned order dated 18.10.2021, cancelled the original lease, declared the
sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners to be null and void, and held
the land to be Government land.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is
wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. It is contended that
once the Collector had already exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction in
Case No. 06/2013-14 and had upheld the legality of the allotment, the grant
o f bhumiswami rights, and the subsequent transfers, the Collector became
functus officio and could not initiate a second suo motu revision on the very
same subject matter. The subsequent proceedings were, in substance, an
impermissible review of the earlier final order, although no power of review
is vested in the Collector under the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore,
the second exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction was wholly without
authority of law.
It is further submitted that even during the second revisional
proceedings, the inquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate
culminated in a categorical finding that the allotment and subsequent
transactions were perfectly legal. The Collector, without assigning any
cogent reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry report and without dealing
with the findings recorded therein, arbitrarily passed the impugned order,
rendering the decision perverse and unsustainable.
It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
5 WP-18681-2022
violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners, who are bona

fide purchasers and whose valuable civil rights stand directly affected by the
impugned order, were never served with any notice nor afforded any
opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the lease and declaration of
their registered sale deeds as void. The petitioners remained completely
unaware of the proceedings as well as the order dated 18.10.2021 and came
to know about the same only on 30.07.2022, when the Patwari informed
them that the Additional District Magistrate had initiated proceedings for
dispossessing them pursuant to the Collector's order. Thus, the impugned
order has been passed behind the back of the petitioners and in flagrant
violation of the audi alteram partem rule.
It is lastly submitted that although a statutory alternative remedy may
otherwise be available, the same does not operate as a bar to the
maintainability of the present writ petition, as the impugned order is ex facie
without jurisdiction, amounts to an unauthorized exercise of review in the
guise of suo motu revision, and has been passed in complete breach of the
principles of natural justice without notice or hearing to the petitioners. It is
well settled that where an order is passed without jurisdiction or in violation
of fundamental principles of natural justice, the existence of an alternative
remedy is not an efficacious bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 18.10.2021 is liable to
be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
6 WP-18681-2022
present writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable in view of the

availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is contended
that the Collector has rightly exercised his suo motu revisional jurisdiction to
rectify a patent illegality committed in the original allotment, as the land in
question was recorded as Government charnoi land, which could not have
been allotted in contravention of the statutory provisions governing such
land. The State further submits that the earlier revisional proceedings do not
operate as a bar to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where fresh material
disclosing serious illegality in the original allotment subsequently came to
light, and therefore the impugned proceedings cannot be construed as an
impermissible review of the earlier order. It is further argued that the inquiry
report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate was merely
recommendatory in nature and not binding upon the Collector, who, being
the competent statutory authority, was fully empowered to independently
appreciate the entire record and arrive at his own conclusion. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioners, claiming through the original allottee,
cannot acquire any better title than that of their predecessor-in-interest, and if
the very foundation of the title, i.e. the original lease and conferment of
bhumiswami rights, is found to be illegal, all subsequent transfers
automatically become void and confer no enforceable right upon the
purchasers. It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated against
the original allottee and his legal representatives, and in any event, the
petitioners have an adequate statutory remedy to agitate all factual and legal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
7 WP-18681-2022
issues before the competent appellate authority. It is, therefore, prayed that

the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The power of revision is a supervisory jurisdiction intended to correct
jurisdictional errors, illegalities or material irregularities committed by
subordinate authorities. Such power is not intended to confer an unrestricted
authority to repeatedly reopen matters which have already attained finality.
Once the revisional authority has exercised its jurisdiction, examined the
legality of the proceedings and rendered a final decision, the jurisdiction
stands exhausted. In the absence of any express statutory provision
conferring power of review or permitting successive revisions on the same
subject matter, the authority becomes functus officio. Any subsequent
attempt to reconsider the same issue would amount not to an exercise of
revisional jurisdiction but to an impermissible review of the earlier order.
The distinction between the powers of revision and review is well
settled. While revisional jurisdiction authorizes examination of the legality
of orders passed by subordinate authorities, the power of review enables the
authority to reconsider its own concluded decision. Such power cannot be
assumed by implication and must be expressly conferred by statute. Though
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code provides the Collector with powers to
review his own revisional order but within the four corners of provision of
Section 51. But the Collector had finally adjudicated the legality of the
allotment in Suo Moto Revision No.06/2013-14 where he lacked jurisdiction
to reopen the very same controversy merely because another representation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
8 WP-18681-2022
had been submitted by the Tahsildar.

The entire foundation of the second suo motu revision is the identical
allotment order dated 19.06.1981, the same grant of bhumiswami rights in
the year 1985 and the very same subsequent sale transactions which had
already been examined in the earlier revisional proceedings. There is no
finding in the impugned order regarding discovery of any new material,
fraud or suppression of facts which could justify reopening of the earlier
concluded adjudication. Mere submission of another representation by the
Tahsildar could not revive a jurisdiction which had already been exercised
and exhausted. If such repeated exercises of suo motu revisional power are
permitted, there would be no finality to administrative adjudication and
every concluded matter could be reopened repeatedly at the instance of the
same authority, which is wholly alien to the rule of law.
Equally significant is the fact that even during the second revisional
proceedings, the Additional District Magistrate, after conducting a
comprehensive inquiry pursuant to the Collector's own direction, recorded
categorical findings supporting the legality of the original allotment and the
subsequent conferment of bhumiswami rights. The inquiry further concluded
that no legal action could be initiated against the legal heirs of Ram Singh or
the purchasers. The Collector has completely discarded the inquiry report
without assigning any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the
conclusions recorded therein. An administrative authority exercising quasi-
judicial jurisdiction cannot ignore material evidence placed before it nor can
it reject a duly constituted inquiry report without recording cogent reasons.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
9 WP-18681-2022
Failure to deal with relevant material renders the decision arbitrary and

perverse.
The impugned order suffers from yet another serious infirmity.
Admittedly, the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the present
petitioners have been declared null and void and their proprietary rights have
been extinguished without issuing any notice to them or affording them an
opportunity of hearing. The petitioners are admittedly bona fide purchasers
claiming title through registered sale deeds and their civil rights have been
directly affected by the impugned order. Any order adversely affecting
vested proprietary rights could not have been passed behind their back.
Compliance with the principles of natural justice is not an empty formality
but constitutes an integral part of every quasi-judicial proceeding involving
civil consequences. The audi alteram partem rule mandates that every person
likely to be prejudicially affected must be given an effective opportunity of
hearing before any adverse order is passed. The admitted absence of notice to
the petitioners vitiates the entire proceedings.
It is well settled that although the existence of an alternative remedy
ordinarily persuades this Court not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, such rule is one of self-imposed restraint and not a
jurisdictional bar. Where the impugned order is passed wholly without
jurisdiction, where the authority exercises a power not vested in it by law, or
where the order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of
natural justice, this Court would be fully justified in exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722
10 WP-18681-2022
remedy.

In the present case, the second suo motu revision itself was wholly
without jurisdiction, being nothing but an impermissible review of an earlier
revisional order which had attained finality. The Collector had no authority
in law to reopen the same controversy for a second time. The impugned order
is further vitiated by complete non-consideration of the inquiry report
submitted by the Additional District Magistrate and by gross violation of the
principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners, whose registered
sale deeds and proprietary rights have been annulled, were never afforded
any notice or opportunity of hearing.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the initiation of the second suo motu revisional proceedings itself was
wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction. Consequently, every action
taken pursuant thereto stands vitiated. The impugned order dated 18.10.2021
passed by the Collector, District Gwalior in Case No.02/2015-16/Suo Motu
Revision so far as it pertains to Ramsingh S/o Nandu Khatik and his
successors-in-title i.e. the petitioners cannot be sustained in law and is
accordingly quashed. All consequential proceedings and directions flowing
therefrom shall also stand set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/8/2026
4:15:26 PM