Review Authority Cannot Annul Trial Court Orders While Exercising Limited Power of Review Over Appellate Orders

The respondent, Kamal Singh, sought correction of revenue entries for disputed land, claiming his father’s name was recorded between 2001–2005 but replaced by the petitioners’ names in 2010

A Patwari report revealed that the respondent’s father's name had been entered in 1990 without a lawful order, based on an unsigned mutation register entry

The Trial Court dismissed the respondent's application on 23.10.2023, a decision subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority on 25.09.2025

On 12.12.2025, the Additional Collector allowed the review, not only setting aside his own appellate order but also the Trial Court's original order

The petitioners challenged this review order before the High Court alleging jurisdictional overreach and bias

1. Whether the Additional Collector exceeded the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code by setting aside the Trial Court’s order while reviewing an appellate order.

2. Whether the apprehension of bias justified the transfer of the matter to a different authority upon remand.

Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which governs the power of revenue officers to review their own orders

The scope of review is restricted to correcting "errors apparent on the face of the record" and does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence or the exercise of appellate-like powers over subordinate court orders

Principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine that "justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done," to address allegations of bias in adjudicatory processes

Under Section 51, the authority's power was limited to reviewing the legality of its own appellate order dated 25.09.2025; however, the Collector impermissibly reached back to annul the Trial Court’s order dated 23.10.2023

The Court noted that since both lower authorities had concurrently found the 1990 mutation entry to be unauthorized and fraudulent (lacking signatures/seals), these findings of fact could not be reopened in a review proceeding without a manifest error

The Court determined that while it would not rule on the merits of the bias allegation, the "circumstances surrounding the exercise of review jurisdiction" created a reasonable apprehension of partiality

To maintain public confidence, a remand to the same officer was deemed inappropriate

The Court held that a reviewing authority cannot annul a Trial Court's order in a review of an appellate decree.

The matter was remitted to the Collector, Gwalior, with a specific direction to assign the review and appeal proceedings to a different, competent Additional Collector (excluding the officer who passed the quashed order) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law