Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 470
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10111 of 2024)
The State of Madhya Pradesh.
...Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is
against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore which
interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, exercising suo
motu powers under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:23 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
1
Code, 1959 . The Revisional Order dated 14.09.2021, set
aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam dated
21.03.2018 by which permission under Section 165 (6) of
the Code of 1959 was granted for sale of the land of
respondent Nos.2 to 5 which resulted in execution of a
registered sale deed dated 26.03.2018 in favour of the
Writ Petitioner. The impugned order set aside the
Revisional Order and directed that any consequential
changes made in the revenue records would stand
cancelled; restoring the mutation dated 18.05.2018 in the
name of the Writ Petitioner.
3. Mr.Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the appellant-State, argued that
the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the suo
moto order passed by the Commissioner, which was in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of 1959.
Section 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the
bhumiswami (landlords); to protect and preserve the
1
The Code of 1959
Page 2 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
lands of Tribals who could be easily induced to alienate
it without being aware of the consequences. In the
present case, it was the Additional Collector who
granted permission under Section 165 (6) (ii) when only
the Collector or an officer higher in rank could have
granted such permission. It is pointed out that the
Additional Collector was not allocated the specific
powers under Section 165 (6) as on the date of the grant
of permission and the permission did not consider
various aspects as required under sub-section (6-c). The
grant of permission was not only without jurisdiction but
also was vitiated by total non-application of mind.
4. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 in the appeal, who was
the Writ Petitioner, pointed out from the Code of 1959
itself that Section 11 while delineating the various classes
of Revenue Officers named ‘Collectors (including
Additional Collectors)’ . It is also pointed out that by
Annexure R-1, produced along with the counter-
Page 3 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
affidavit, the named Additional Collector who granted
permission, was authorized by the Collector to exercise
the powers under the Code of 1959; which order is dated
19.05.2017 prior to the grant of permission. The order
impugned in the Writ Petition is read over to urge that
consideration was on all aspects required under Section
165 (6-c); especially considering the fact that admittedly
the land was not located in the area notified by the State
Government as predominantly inhabited by aboriginal
tribes and the permission being enabled under Clause
(ii) of sub-section of Section 165 (6). The learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik appearing for respondent Nos.
2 to 5, the original landlords who were the vendors in the
sale deed supported the arguments of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
5. The High Court in its order found that the exercise
of suo motu powers can be only within 180 days of
knowledge and the revisional order having been passed
after expiry of the period as held in a Full Bench decision
Page 4 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collector had
referred the matter to the Commissioner in the month of
October, 2018 and the final order was passed by the
Commissioner after almost three years on 14.09.2021
long after the limitation period expired the date of
knowledge being at least, the date on which the
Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner.
6.
On merits, it was found that the request made by
the landowners was genuine and they received
consideration more than that of the market value existing
on the date. It was also found, based on the distribution
memo dated 22.11.2016 that the Additional Collector had
been assigned the powers under the Code of 1959. The
discrepancies in the dates of the publication being not
noticed in the proceedings were found to be trivial and
not going to the root of the matter.
7. The Code of 1959 attempted to consolidate and
amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of
revenue officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land
Page 5 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
from the state government, agricultural tenures and
other matters relating to land and the liabilities
incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh. Section 11
enumerates various classes of revenue officers, where
‘Collector (including the Additional Collectors)’ is placed,
in seriatim, at the third position. It is also very pertinent
that when the permission was granted by the Additional
Collector on 21.03.2018, Annexure R/1 dated 19.05.2017;
work allocation order was in force which at serial No.2
shows the name of the Additional Collector, who granted
the permission, having been thus enabled to exercise
powers conferred on the Collector under the Code of
1959. The State, hence, cannot contend for a minute that
the Additional Collector was not competent to consider
the permission sought for by the landlords.
8. Section 165 (6) specifically refers to the ‘Rights of
transfer’, obviously of landowners, wherein sub-section
(6) deals with the lands belonging to the members of the
indigenous tribes (referred to in the Statue as
Page 6 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
‘aboriginal’ , in the alternative referred as ‘indigenous’ by
us in this judgment). Sub-section (6) of Section 165 has
two limbs, in clause (i) and clause (ii). Clause (i)
provides a blanket prohibition in so far as the transfer of
lands situated in an area predominantly inhabited by
indigenous tribes, as notified by the Government,
owned by a person belonging to that indigenous tribe,
to persons other than that of the specific indigenous
tribe. This does not apply in the instant case, since
admittedly the land is not situated in a notified area in
Ratlam District as seen from Annexure A-1, produced
along with the counter affidavit of the appellant filed
pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025. In the district of
Ratlam the notification applies only to two Tehsils,
namely Sailan and Bhajna. It is also an admitted position
that respondent Nos.2 to 5, the land owners, who made
the sale, are members of an indigenous tribe, enabled to
transfer the lands in their ownership, situated in areas
not covered by the Government notification as stipulated
Page 7 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
in Clause (i), but only with the prior permission of a
revenue officer not below the rank of Collector; which
permission also has to be recorded in writing.
9. The application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is
produced as Annexure A-5 in the counter affidavit of the
State, succinctly stated, respondent Nos.2 to 5 had
ownership over 6.290 hectares of land out of which they
intended to sell 4.440 hectares, for which they had
executed an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 for
that portion of the land which was not in cultivation. The
sale was intended for generating funds for the marriage
of children, settlement of loans; while retaining a portion
of the land which was asserted to be sufficient for their
requirements, the owners also having possession of
lands in other villages. The price offered was also stated
to be far more than the market value.
10. The order of the Additional Collector is produced
as Annexure P-2 in the Writ Petition, wherein he refers to
the various grounds stated in the application and the
Page 8 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
report secured by the Tehsildar from the Village Patwari
on sixteen points to grant the permission sought for. It
was also specifically noticed in the order that the
purchaser, the respondent in the application, had
undertaken that the land will be used for agricultural
purposes. The market value of the land was found to be
Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha, thus putting the total value at
Rs.38,31,720/-; whereas the total consideration paid was
Rs.45 lakhs, far in excess. The permission was granted
mandating that the balance sale consideration should be
paid either by a cheque or through RTGS, stipulating also
that there shall be no conversion of use of the land till
completion of 10 years from the date of transfer; as
provided under sub-section (6-ee) of Section 165 of the
Code of 1959.
11. In this context, we must consider the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the State that sub-
section (6-c) has not been complied with, which
Page 9 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
consideration requires the above provision to be
extracted, which reads thus: -
“(6-c) The Collector shall in passing an order under
sub-section (6-a) granting or refusing to grant
permission or under sub-section (6-b) ratifying or
refusing to ratify the transaction shall have due regard
to the following: -
(i) whether or not the person to whom land is
being transferred is a resident of the Scheduled
Area;
(ii)the purpose to which land shall be or is likely
to be used after the transfer;
(iii)whether the transfer serves, or is likely to
serve or prejudice the social, cultural and
economic interest of the residents of the
Scheduled Area;
(iv)whether the consideration paid is adequate;
(v)whether the transaction is spurious or benami;
and
(vi)such other matters as may be prescribed.
The decision of the Collector granting or refusing to
grant the permission under sub-section (6-a) or
ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction of transfer
under sub-section (6-b), shall be final,
Page 10 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
this Code.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section,-
(a)"Scheduled Area" means any area declared to be a
Scheduled Area within the State of Madhya Pradesh
under paragraph 6 of the Fifth Scheduled to the
Constitution of India;
(b)the burden of proving that the transfer was not
spurious, fictitious or benami shall lie on the person
who claims such transfer to be valid.”
12. We cannot but observe that sub-section (6-c)
applies only to orders under sub-sections (6-a) & (6-b).
However, we would still consider the plea taken, since a
ratification or refusal to ratify under sub-section (6-b)
could apply to sub-section (6), though there is no
ratification made mandatory therein; as is compulsory
under the proviso to sub-section (6-a). Clause (i) and
(iii), as extracted above, is not applicable to the instant
case, since admittedly the land is not located in a
scheduled area. So far as clause (ii) is concerned, sub-
Page 11 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
section (6-ee) prohibits any diversion of use of the land
for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer, which
condition has been prescribed by the Additional
Commissioner in the order granting permission. As far
as clause (iv) is concerned, we have already noticed that
the consideration paid is far more than the market value,
as specifically noticed by the Additional Collector in the
order granting permission. Clause (v) has also been
dealt with, when the Additional Collector found that the
transaction for which the permission is sought cannot be
termed to be sham transaction. We need not dwell upon
clause (vi), since no prescription made or violation of
such a prescription has been argued before us.
13. We already noticed that as per our order dated
20.03.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the
report of the Patwari, relied on by the Additional
Collector has been produced as Annexure A-4. The
Village Patwari has dealt with sixteen points,
comprehensively covering any apprehension or
Page 12 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
suspicion regarding the owners of the land, who are
members of indigenous tribes, being deprived of their
property by an irregular act or an illegal device, which
is a sham transaction.
14. In so far as the question of limitation, the impugned
order has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh since dead
2
through L.R.s v. State of M.P. . Therein the provision
under Section 50, conferring revisional power on the
Board/ Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner/
Collector or the Settlement Officer was found to have
prescribed a limitation of 60 days to file an application
before the Officers other than the Board of Revenue and
90 days to the Board, from the date of the order sought to
be revised. The Full Bench found that though a limitation
is provided for filing an application, there is no upper
limit provided for exercise of such powers, which
according to the Full Bench, cannot be deemed to have
22
2010 SCC OnLine MP 325
Page 13 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
conferred unfettered right on the revisional authority to
exercise this power at any point of time, on a mere whim
of the authority. After looking at various decisions of this
Court and also the provisions of the Code of 1959, an
upper limit of 180 days was prescribed for exercise of
such powers. We need not dwell upon that controversy
at this point since we have found on merits that the order
is sustainable.
15. In this context, we also notice that the revisional
power as provided under Section 50 could have been
exercised by the Collector himself, which he chose not
to do and referred the matter to the Commissioner.
16. On the above reasoning, we find that the Additional
Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6)
(ii) properly and within his jurisdiction. The
consideration leading to the grant of permission also
have been dealt with by us; found to be perfectly in
order. The exercise of the revisional power under
Section 50 of the Code of 1959, according to us was
Page 14 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
erroneous and on a flawed understanding of the
provisions in the Code of 1959. We find absolutely no
reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
Page 15 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10111 of 2024)
The State of Madhya Pradesh.
...Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is
against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore which
interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, exercising suo
motu powers under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:23 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
1
Code, 1959 . The Revisional Order dated 14.09.2021, set
aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam dated
21.03.2018 by which permission under Section 165 (6) of
the Code of 1959 was granted for sale of the land of
respondent Nos.2 to 5 which resulted in execution of a
registered sale deed dated 26.03.2018 in favour of the
Writ Petitioner. The impugned order set aside the
Revisional Order and directed that any consequential
changes made in the revenue records would stand
cancelled; restoring the mutation dated 18.05.2018 in the
name of the Writ Petitioner.
3. Mr.Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the appellant-State, argued that
the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the suo
moto order passed by the Commissioner, which was in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of 1959.
Section 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the
bhumiswami (landlords); to protect and preserve the
1
The Code of 1959
Page 2 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
lands of Tribals who could be easily induced to alienate
it without being aware of the consequences. In the
present case, it was the Additional Collector who
granted permission under Section 165 (6) (ii) when only
the Collector or an officer higher in rank could have
granted such permission. It is pointed out that the
Additional Collector was not allocated the specific
powers under Section 165 (6) as on the date of the grant
of permission and the permission did not consider
various aspects as required under sub-section (6-c). The
grant of permission was not only without jurisdiction but
also was vitiated by total non-application of mind.
4. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 in the appeal, who was
the Writ Petitioner, pointed out from the Code of 1959
itself that Section 11 while delineating the various classes
of Revenue Officers named ‘Collectors (including
Additional Collectors)’ . It is also pointed out that by
Annexure R-1, produced along with the counter-
Page 3 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
affidavit, the named Additional Collector who granted
permission, was authorized by the Collector to exercise
the powers under the Code of 1959; which order is dated
19.05.2017 prior to the grant of permission. The order
impugned in the Writ Petition is read over to urge that
consideration was on all aspects required under Section
165 (6-c); especially considering the fact that admittedly
the land was not located in the area notified by the State
Government as predominantly inhabited by aboriginal
tribes and the permission being enabled under Clause
(ii) of sub-section of Section 165 (6). The learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik appearing for respondent Nos.
2 to 5, the original landlords who were the vendors in the
sale deed supported the arguments of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
5. The High Court in its order found that the exercise
of suo motu powers can be only within 180 days of
knowledge and the revisional order having been passed
after expiry of the period as held in a Full Bench decision
Page 4 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collector had
referred the matter to the Commissioner in the month of
October, 2018 and the final order was passed by the
Commissioner after almost three years on 14.09.2021
long after the limitation period expired the date of
knowledge being at least, the date on which the
Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner.
6.
On merits, it was found that the request made by
the landowners was genuine and they received
consideration more than that of the market value existing
on the date. It was also found, based on the distribution
memo dated 22.11.2016 that the Additional Collector had
been assigned the powers under the Code of 1959. The
discrepancies in the dates of the publication being not
noticed in the proceedings were found to be trivial and
not going to the root of the matter.
7. The Code of 1959 attempted to consolidate and
amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of
revenue officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land
Page 5 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
from the state government, agricultural tenures and
other matters relating to land and the liabilities
incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh. Section 11
enumerates various classes of revenue officers, where
‘Collector (including the Additional Collectors)’ is placed,
in seriatim, at the third position. It is also very pertinent
that when the permission was granted by the Additional
Collector on 21.03.2018, Annexure R/1 dated 19.05.2017;
work allocation order was in force which at serial No.2
shows the name of the Additional Collector, who granted
the permission, having been thus enabled to exercise
powers conferred on the Collector under the Code of
1959. The State, hence, cannot contend for a minute that
the Additional Collector was not competent to consider
the permission sought for by the landlords.
8. Section 165 (6) specifically refers to the ‘Rights of
transfer’, obviously of landowners, wherein sub-section
(6) deals with the lands belonging to the members of the
indigenous tribes (referred to in the Statue as
Page 6 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
‘aboriginal’ , in the alternative referred as ‘indigenous’ by
us in this judgment). Sub-section (6) of Section 165 has
two limbs, in clause (i) and clause (ii). Clause (i)
provides a blanket prohibition in so far as the transfer of
lands situated in an area predominantly inhabited by
indigenous tribes, as notified by the Government,
owned by a person belonging to that indigenous tribe,
to persons other than that of the specific indigenous
tribe. This does not apply in the instant case, since
admittedly the land is not situated in a notified area in
Ratlam District as seen from Annexure A-1, produced
along with the counter affidavit of the appellant filed
pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025. In the district of
Ratlam the notification applies only to two Tehsils,
namely Sailan and Bhajna. It is also an admitted position
that respondent Nos.2 to 5, the land owners, who made
the sale, are members of an indigenous tribe, enabled to
transfer the lands in their ownership, situated in areas
not covered by the Government notification as stipulated
Page 7 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
in Clause (i), but only with the prior permission of a
revenue officer not below the rank of Collector; which
permission also has to be recorded in writing.
9. The application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is
produced as Annexure A-5 in the counter affidavit of the
State, succinctly stated, respondent Nos.2 to 5 had
ownership over 6.290 hectares of land out of which they
intended to sell 4.440 hectares, for which they had
executed an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 for
that portion of the land which was not in cultivation. The
sale was intended for generating funds for the marriage
of children, settlement of loans; while retaining a portion
of the land which was asserted to be sufficient for their
requirements, the owners also having possession of
lands in other villages. The price offered was also stated
to be far more than the market value.
10. The order of the Additional Collector is produced
as Annexure P-2 in the Writ Petition, wherein he refers to
the various grounds stated in the application and the
Page 8 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
report secured by the Tehsildar from the Village Patwari
on sixteen points to grant the permission sought for. It
was also specifically noticed in the order that the
purchaser, the respondent in the application, had
undertaken that the land will be used for agricultural
purposes. The market value of the land was found to be
Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha, thus putting the total value at
Rs.38,31,720/-; whereas the total consideration paid was
Rs.45 lakhs, far in excess. The permission was granted
mandating that the balance sale consideration should be
paid either by a cheque or through RTGS, stipulating also
that there shall be no conversion of use of the land till
completion of 10 years from the date of transfer; as
provided under sub-section (6-ee) of Section 165 of the
Code of 1959.
11. In this context, we must consider the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the State that sub-
section (6-c) has not been complied with, which
Page 9 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
consideration requires the above provision to be
extracted, which reads thus: -
“(6-c) The Collector shall in passing an order under
sub-section (6-a) granting or refusing to grant
permission or under sub-section (6-b) ratifying or
refusing to ratify the transaction shall have due regard
to the following: -
(i) whether or not the person to whom land is
being transferred is a resident of the Scheduled
Area;
(ii)the purpose to which land shall be or is likely
to be used after the transfer;
(iii)whether the transfer serves, or is likely to
serve or prejudice the social, cultural and
economic interest of the residents of the
Scheduled Area;
(iv)whether the consideration paid is adequate;
(v)whether the transaction is spurious or benami;
and
(vi)such other matters as may be prescribed.
The decision of the Collector granting or refusing to
grant the permission under sub-section (6-a) or
ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction of transfer
under sub-section (6-b), shall be final,
Page 10 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
this Code.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section,-
(a)"Scheduled Area" means any area declared to be a
Scheduled Area within the State of Madhya Pradesh
under paragraph 6 of the Fifth Scheduled to the
Constitution of India;
(b)the burden of proving that the transfer was not
spurious, fictitious or benami shall lie on the person
who claims such transfer to be valid.”
12. We cannot but observe that sub-section (6-c)
applies only to orders under sub-sections (6-a) & (6-b).
However, we would still consider the plea taken, since a
ratification or refusal to ratify under sub-section (6-b)
could apply to sub-section (6), though there is no
ratification made mandatory therein; as is compulsory
under the proviso to sub-section (6-a). Clause (i) and
(iii), as extracted above, is not applicable to the instant
case, since admittedly the land is not located in a
scheduled area. So far as clause (ii) is concerned, sub-
Page 11 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
section (6-ee) prohibits any diversion of use of the land
for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer, which
condition has been prescribed by the Additional
Commissioner in the order granting permission. As far
as clause (iv) is concerned, we have already noticed that
the consideration paid is far more than the market value,
as specifically noticed by the Additional Collector in the
order granting permission. Clause (v) has also been
dealt with, when the Additional Collector found that the
transaction for which the permission is sought cannot be
termed to be sham transaction. We need not dwell upon
clause (vi), since no prescription made or violation of
such a prescription has been argued before us.
13. We already noticed that as per our order dated
20.03.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the
report of the Patwari, relied on by the Additional
Collector has been produced as Annexure A-4. The
Village Patwari has dealt with sixteen points,
comprehensively covering any apprehension or
Page 12 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
suspicion regarding the owners of the land, who are
members of indigenous tribes, being deprived of their
property by an irregular act or an illegal device, which
is a sham transaction.
14. In so far as the question of limitation, the impugned
order has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh since dead
2
through L.R.s v. State of M.P. . Therein the provision
under Section 50, conferring revisional power on the
Board/ Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner/
Collector or the Settlement Officer was found to have
prescribed a limitation of 60 days to file an application
before the Officers other than the Board of Revenue and
90 days to the Board, from the date of the order sought to
be revised. The Full Bench found that though a limitation
is provided for filing an application, there is no upper
limit provided for exercise of such powers, which
according to the Full Bench, cannot be deemed to have
22
2010 SCC OnLine MP 325
Page 13 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
conferred unfettered right on the revisional authority to
exercise this power at any point of time, on a mere whim
of the authority. After looking at various decisions of this
Court and also the provisions of the Code of 1959, an
upper limit of 180 days was prescribed for exercise of
such powers. We need not dwell upon that controversy
at this point since we have found on merits that the order
is sustainable.
15. In this context, we also notice that the revisional
power as provided under Section 50 could have been
exercised by the Collector himself, which he chose not
to do and referred the matter to the Commissioner.
16. On the above reasoning, we find that the Additional
Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6)
(ii) properly and within his jurisdiction. The
consideration leading to the grant of permission also
have been dealt with by us; found to be perfectly in
order. The exercise of the revisional power under
Section 50 of the Code of 1959, according to us was
Page 14 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024
erroneous and on a flawed understanding of the
provisions in the Code of 1959. We find absolutely no
reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
Page 15 of 15
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024