Review permission granted mechanically without independent satisfaction or adherence to natural justice is legally unsustainable.

Respondents Kusum Jain and Ratnesh Jain filed a complaint before the Tehsildar alleging that land in Survey No. 163, reserved for a park, was illegally mutated in the name of the Petitioner-Society and subsequently sold to a private party

The Tehsildar sought permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) via letter dated 17.12.2014 to review a decade-old mutation order dated 19.06.2011

The SDO granted permission on 24.12.2014 without issuing notices to the affected parties or recording independent reasons

Subsequent orders by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector (in revision dated 05.01.2021) upheld the initiation of review proceedings

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, contending that the park land was intact and the review was initiated mechanically

1. Whether the SDO's order granting permission to review was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of independent application of mind and failure to record satisfaction

2. Whether the initiation of review proceedings violated the principles of natural justice due to the lack of notice to affected parties

3. Whether there existed a valid factual foundation for reviewing the 2011 mutation order in light of the Cooperative Inspector’s report

The court applied principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction by Revenue Officers under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, emphasizing the requirement of "application of independent mind" by a superior authority (SDO) when granting permission for review

The court relied on the Doctrine of Natural Justice, which necessitates an opportunity of hearing to affected parties before prejudicial orders are passed

The court applied the principle that a review cannot be initiated on a "misconceived" factual foundation or vague allegations

The High Court found that the SDO granted permission to review the 2011 mutation order "mechanically" and "on the same order-sheet" without recording any satisfaction regarding the bona fides of the Tehsildar's request

The Court observed that the SDO failed to issue show-cause notices to the Petitioner, rendering the proceedings ab initio void for violating natural justice

The Court analyzed Annexure P/5-A (Report of the Cooperative Inspector), which revealed that while 448 sqm was earmarked for a park, 488 sqm was actually available on the spot; since the park land remained intact and there was no evidence of its alienation, the Court reasoned that the foundational premise for the review was "flawed" and "misconceived"

The petition was allowed, and the Court quashed the SDO's order dated 24.12.2014, the Tehsildar's request dated 17.12.2014, and the Additional Collector’s revisional order dated 05.01.2021