A concluded land allotment cannot be annulled after delay absent fraud, jurisdictional defect, or patent illegality.

The petitioners challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morena, in Case No. 127/2002-23, cancelling the agricultural-land allotment made in their favour and setting aside the Tehsildar’s order dated 09.08.1995.

They also challenged the revisional order dated 06.08.2008 by which the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, dismissed their revision.

The petitioners had been allotted agricultural land situated at Village Jarara, Tahsil Porsa, District Morena.

The allotment was directed by the Tehsildar on 09.08.1995 and was allegedly implemented on 05.07.2003, after which the petitioners claimed to have remained in possession and cultivation of the land.

The SDO reopened the matter under Section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, relying, inter alia, on the alleged non-receipt of the order by the concerned applicant, the absence of the order from the Patwari’s record, and the perceived need for further inquiry into possession, adjoining survey numbers and statements of villagers.

The State sought further time to file its reply, but the request was declined because the petition had been pending since 2011 and the State had already been granted an opportunity to file a reply.

Whether the SDO was justified in setting aside the Tehsildar’s order dated 09.08.1995 and reopening the allotment proceedings after a substantial lapse of time, in the absence of a specific finding of fraud, want of jurisdiction or patent illegality?

Whether the Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, properly addressed the effect of the delay, implementation of the allotment order and the absence of a legally sustainable basis for interference?

Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution was warranted to correct the subordinate authorities’ interference with a concluded revenue proceeding?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their lawful authority and to prevent manifest injustice.

The Court also considered the proceedings under Section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, invoked for reopening or reviewing the allotment proceedings.

The governing principle applied was that a concluded order which has been acted upon and implemented cannot be annulled after a considerable lapse of time merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or perceived procedural deficiencies; interference requires a legally sustainable finding of fraud, want of jurisdiction, patent illegality or another comparable ground justifying such action.

The Court found that the Tehsildar was the competent revenue authority and that the allotment order dated 09.08.1995 had subsequently been acted upon, with implementation recorded on 05.07.2003.

The SDO did not record any clear finding that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction, that the order had been obtained by fraud, or that it contained a patent illegality warranting annulment after a substantial delay.

The alleged absence of the order from the Patwari’s record, the lack of statements from villagers and the need for further inquiry regarding possession and adjoining survey numbers could, at most, justify verification; they did not independently establish the invalidity of the original allotment.

The SDO therefore proceeded on suspicion and conjecture rather than on a legally sufficient basis for unsettling an implemented order.

The Commissioner failed to correct these foundational defects and did not properly consider the passage of time or the implementation of the original order.

Consequently, supervisory interference under Article 227 was justified to prevent manifest injustice and ensure that the revenue authorities acted within the bounds of law.

It held that the SDO was not justified in cancelling the allotment and reopening the 1995 proceedings without a specific finding of fraud, want of jurisdiction or patent illegality.

The Commissioner’s revisional order was also unsustainable because it failed to address these material deficiencies.

Accordingly, the orders dated 17.11.2004 and 06.08.2008 were set aside, the Tehsildar’s order dated 09.08.1995 was restored, and the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.