MP HC Leaves Rival’s Bhoodan Allotment Intact, Citing Delayed Challenge and SDO’s Lack of Power to Reopen 1995 Cancellation

The petitioner claimed that Survey No. 167, Village Mayapur, was allotted to him in 1989 under the Bhoodan scheme and that he remained in possession and cultivation.

He challenged proceedings that resulted in the land being allotted to respondent No. 1, alleging lack of notice, lack of jurisdiction following repeal of the 1968 Bhoodan enactment, and violation of restrictions concerning transfer of land held by a Scheduled Tribe member.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), by order dated 28 February 2011, directed restoration of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records. On respondent No. 1’s revision, the Board of Revenue set aside that order on 6 January 2017.

The High Court noted that an earlier order dated 1 August 1989 concerning the Bhoodan patta in favour of the petitioner’s father had been cancelled by the SDO on 30 January 1995, and that the petitioner had not challenged that cancellation within a reasonable time.

A statutory authority cannot review or recall its order on the merits unless that power is expressly or otherwise validly conferred by statute.

Article 226 review does not permit the Court to confer an unvested review power on a statutory authority; interference requires a sufficient legal basis, such as jurisdictional error, material illegality, or perversity in the challenged decision.

The petitioner invoked the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1992, and restrictions under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the Court did not identify or apply a specific provision of either enactment as the basis for its decision.

The Court treated the 2011 SDO order as an attempt to reopen the earlier cancellation of the Bhoodan patta, which had not been challenged within a reasonable time and had attained finality.

Because the SDO lacked statutory authority to review that earlier decision, the subsequent proceedings could not be used to revive the petitioner’s claim.

The Court also found that the petitioner had not established a legally sustainable basis to overcome the earlier order; the assertions of denial of notice and lack of jurisdiction, including the argument based on repeal, did not justify restoring the 2011 order on the material presented.

It accordingly found no jurisdictional error, material illegality, or perversity in the Board’s decision.

The writ petition was dismissed.