A 40-year challenge to revenue entries is barred absent substantiated fraud or a credible delay explanation.

The petitioners claimed through Basheer Khan, who was allegedly a joint owner, along with Nasir Khan, of lands bearing Survey Nos. 787, 807 and 812 at Village Nihalpur Mundi, District Indore.

Nasir Khan sold portions of Survey Nos. 787 and 807 to the respondents through a registered sale deed in 1981, but the petitioners contended that Survey No. 812 was never sold.

They alleged that, due to a clerical error or fraud, the name of Gopikishan was entered in the revenue records for Survey No. 812 pursuant to Revenue Case No. 140/A-6/1981-82, while Basheer Khan’s name was deleted.

The petitioners filed an application under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“MPLRC”) on 15 September 2022, seeking correction of the revenue entries.

The SDO rejected the respondents’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 9 May 2023. In revision, the Additional Collector allowed the respondents’ challenge and dismissed the correction proceedings on limitation by order dated 8 July 2023. The petitioners’ review application was dismissed on 19 February 2025.

The petition challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court also noted that the respondents had remained in possession since 1981–82, obtained development permissions, and sold approximately 91 plots through registered sale deeds from 2012–13 onwards, creating third-party rights.

1. Whether the petitioners could seek correction of a revenue entry made in 1981–82 by initiating proceedings under Section 115 of the MPLRC only in 2022, after a delay of more than forty years, in view of Section 116 of the unamended MPLRC and the doctrine of reasonable time.

2. Whether the allegations that the revenue entry resulted from fraud or clerical error, and that the original mutation record was unavailable, were sufficient to overcome the delay and require adjudication after recording evidence.

3. Whether the orders dated 8 July 2023 and 19 February 2025 suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Section 116 of the unamended MPLRC, which required an aggrieved person to seek correction of a land-record entry within one year of the entry.

It considered Sections 168 and 190 of the MPLRC concerning agricultural leases and the conferral of bhumiswami rights on certain occupancy tenants, respectively.

The Court also referred to Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 concerning presumptions relating to documents more than thirty years old.

Relying on State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187, and Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsingh Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695, the Court held that statutory or revisional powers affecting land records must be exercised within a reasonable period, even where no express limitation is prescribed; allegations of fraud do not permit an indefinite reopening of settled transactions, particularly where third-party rights have intervened.

The Court further applied the principle that fraud must be specifically pleaded and supported by material and cannot be established merely by assertion.

Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is limited and does not permit interference merely because another view on the facts may be possible.

The Court held that the challenge was directed against a revenue entry made in 1981–82 but was initiated only in September 2022, resulting in an unexplained delay of approximately forty-one years.

The petitioners had not produced the relevant revenue entries or any contemporaneous material demonstrating that Basheer Khan continued to assert ownership or possession over Survey No. 812 after 1981–82.

The Court found that the Tehsildar’s inability to trace the old mutation file did not establish that the mutation was illegal, fraudulent, or without jurisdiction, particularly since the available report referred to mutation pursuant to a revenue case.

The respondents’ continuous possession, development activities, and execution of approximately 91 registered sale deeds had created substantial third-party rights, making the belated reopening of the entry contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

The allegation of fraud was unsupported by specific evidence, and the Court held that merely describing the entry as fraudulent could not extend the limitation period indefinitely.

Accordingly, the Additional Collector’s decision to reject the proceedings on limitation did not disclose any jurisdictional or procedural error warranting writ interference.

It held that the application seeking correction of the 1981–82 revenue entry, filed after more than forty years and without sufficient material explaining the delay or establishing fraud, was not maintainable.

The orders dated 8 July 2023 and 19 February 2025 were found not to suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice.

The Miscellaneous Petition was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit.