Administrative authorities cannot review orders affirmed by appellate bodies or misinterpret court directions to bypass finality.

The petitioners purchased a residential plot in District Raisen via a registered sale deed.

Following complaints by local residents alleging the land was Government "Nistar" land, the Collector (Nazul) conducted an inquiry and, on 14.12.2012, concluded the land was not Government property, subsequently dismissing the complaint.

This order was affirmed by the Commissioner on appeal.

An intervener filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Division Bench disposed of the PIL and a subsequent review petition with a direction to the Collector to complete the legal process for encroachment removal "in accordance with law," explicitly stating it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the land's ownership.

Despite this, the Collector passed a new order on 18.10.2016 (Annexure-P/18), declaring the land as Government property and ordering dispossession, purportedly to comply with the High Court’s PIL direction.

Principle of Quasi-Judicial Discipline and the doctrine of Finality of Administrative/Quasi-Judicial Orders: once an order passed by a competent authority (the Collector) is affirmed by an appellate authority (the Commissioner), it becomes binding and conclusive in the absence of a further challenge.

Precedent in Sindh Mahajan Exchange Limited vs. State of M.P. and others (1980 JLJ 581) regarding the status of Nazul land.

A subordinate authority cannot "review" or bypass its own final orders (affirmed by an upper forum) under the guise of complying with "innocuous" court directions that did not adjudicate on merits.

The Court observed that the Collector acted under a "mistaken impression" and a "misconception" of the Division Bench's orders.

The Division Bench had explicitly clarified in the review petition that it had not decided any issue on merits and that the Collector must provide a fair hearing.

The Court found that the Collector's initial 2012 order (finding the land was private) and the Commissioner’s 2013 appellate order had attained finality because the State or interveners never challenged them in the PIL prayer clause.

By recording a contrary finding in 2016, the Collector effectively reviewed a settled matter, which the Court deemed a "nullity" and an act of quasi-judicial indiscipline, especially since the appellate order of the Commissioner was binding on the Collector.

The Court held that the order dated 14.12.2012 had already attained finality and the Collector lacked the jurisdiction to reverse it unilaterally.

The impugned order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure-P/18) was declared a nullity and quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.