Revenue authorities cannot adversely affect vested property rights without prior notice and effective hearing.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of land bearing Survey No. 584 situated at Village Morawan, District Sheopur, acquired through a registered sale deed after verification of the title and revenue records. Its name was subsequently mutated, and it obtained the requisite permissions and no-objection certificates.

The Additional Collector, Sheopur, by order dated 1 May 2025 in Revision No. Revision/0012/2024-25, declared the 1996–97 settlement illegal and set it aside. The petitioner alleged that the order adversely affected its proprietary rights but was passed without notice or an opportunity of hearing.

It further contended that although the Deputy Collector had, by letter dated 21 November 2023, requested the Collector to initiate suo motu proceedings, no formal order commencing such proceedings was passed. Nevertheless, the Additional Collector proceeded to decide the matter as a revision.

The State supported the impugned order.

1. Whether the Additional Collector could pass an order adversely affecting the petitioner’s rights without issuing notice and providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the proceedings could validly be treated as suo motu revisional proceedings in the absence of a formal order authorising or initiating such proceedings.

3. Whether the suo motu revisional power was exercised within the legally permissible or reasonable period.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule that no order having civil consequences may be passed against an affected party without notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Relying on Shahid Anwar v. Board of Revenue and Another, 2000 RN 76, the Court held that even where a power of review or reopening is available, an affected party must be notified and heard before a concluded proceeding is reopened or rights are adversely affected.

The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Ranveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, which held that suo motu revisional power under Section 50 of the relevant Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable period and, having regard to the statutory scheme, ordinarily within 180 days from knowledge of the alleged illegality, impropriety, or irregularity.

The petitioner had acquired an interest in the property through a registered sale deed and subsequent mutation, and the impugned order directly prejudiced those rights.

Therefore, the Additional Collector was required to issue notice and provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing before determining the validity of the earlier settlement.

The record showed only a Deputy Collector’s letter requesting initiation of suo motu proceedings; no subsequent order of the Collector authorising or initiating such proceedings was produced. The Additional Collector nevertheless treated the matter as a revision and passed the impugned order, rendering the exercise procedurally unsustainable.

Further, the revisional exercise was initiated after an undue delay and contrary to the reasonable-period limitation recognised in Ranveer Singh.

These defects—absence of proper initiation, delay, and violation of natural justice—made the order vulnerable, irrespective of the merits of the underlying land dispute.

The order was accordingly set aside.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the petitioner and all other affected or interested parties and granting them an adequate opportunity of hearing. The authority was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.