Collector Cannot Exercise Second Suo Motu Revision to Review a Concluded Order on the Same Subject Matter

The dispute concerns 1.500 hectares of land at Survey No. 60/2 in Village Sasan, Gwalior. Originally classified as communal grazing land (charnoi), it was allotted to late Ram Singh in 1981 by the Tahsildar, after which he was granted ownership rights (bhumiswami) in 1985

Ram Singh subsequently sold portions of the land to the petitioners, who are bona fide purchasers who obtained land diversion and building permissions

In 2013-14, the Collector initiated a self-initiated (suo motu) revision but dismissed it, upholding the legality of the original allotment and subsequent sales

Despite this finality, the Tahsildar submitted a new representation, leading the Collector to initiate a second revision in 2015-16

Even though an internal inquiry by the Additional District Magistrate again found the allotment valid, the Collector issued an order on October 18, 2021, cancelling the original lease and declaring the petitioners' sale deeds void

1. Whether the Collector, having already finalized a prior revision on the same facts, was functus officio and thus barred from initiating a second suo motu revision

2. Whether the impugned order was sustainable given the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and the failure to consider the inquiry report

3. Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226

The court primarily applied the doctrine of functus officio and the limitations on revisional powers under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The court emphasized that the power of review is not inherent and must be specifically granted by statute; Section 51 of the Code provides such power but only under specific constraints.

The court further relied on the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice), asserting that any order affecting vested proprietary rights requires a prior hearing.

The court applied the established rule of constitutional law that an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction if the impugned order is without jurisdiction or violates natural justice.

The court reasoned that the Collector’s initial decision in 2013-14 attained finality, meaning the authority’s jurisdiction over those specific facts was exhausted.

By reopening the same matter based on a second representation without evidence of new material or fraud, the Collector effectively performed an unauthorized review rather than a revision.

The court found the decision-making process flawed because the Collector ignored the findings of the court-ordered inquiry without recording reasons for disagreement.

The court determined that the petitioners' rights as bona fide purchasers were extinguished without notice, which constitutes a flagrant breach of natural justice.

Consequently, because the second revision was "wholly without jurisdiction," the court held that the petitioners were not required to exhaust alternative statutory appeals.

The High Court quashed the Collector's order dated October 18, 2021, and set aside all consequential proceedings, thereby restoring the petitioners' property rights. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.