Sanction for review under Section 51 of MPLRC without notice and hearing is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner purchased property in Survey No. 1862, Morar, in 2007. Encroachment proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, were dropped in 2012 after the Tehsildar found the land to be Abadi.

On 06.05.2015, the Tehsildar ordered the correction of revenue entries to reflect the Abadi status, a decision later affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner on 31.10.2018.

Instead of implementing the correction, the Tehsildar sought a review of the 2015 order on the grounds that old settlement records (Samvat 2008-09) labeled the land "Education Department Kadim".

Permission for review was granted by the Collector, and on 31.12.2019, the Tehsildar passed the impugned order setting aside the 2015 directions.

The petitioner challenged this order alleging lack of notice and non-application of mind.

1. Whether the sanction for review granted by the Collector and the subsequent impugned order dated 31.12.2019 were vitiated due to violation of the mandatory requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing under Section 51 of the MPLRC.

2. Whether the Tehsildar’s review order, passed primarily on settlement entries without independent adjudication on merits, constitutes a mechanical exercise of power.

Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which mandates that no sanction for review shall be granted without affording a notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

Statement on the doctrine that review cannot be a substitute for a rehearing and that failure to provide notice at the sanction stage vitiates the entire proceeding, as established in Shahid Anwar v. Board of Revenue (2000 RN 76) and Mirza Rizvaanur Rehman v. State of M.P. (W.P. 476/2012).

The mandatory nature of natural justice in review jurisdiction as held in Siddharth Dev Singh v. State of M.P. (2019 (1) MPLJ 175).

The Court found that the sanction for review was granted by the Collector without providing the petitioner an effective notice or opportunity of hearing, violating the express proviso of Section 51 of the MPLRC.

The Court noted that while the impugned order claimed the petitioner filed a reply, no such document existed on record, rendering the sanction inherently illegal.

The Court reasoned that the Tehsildar’s order was "non-speaking" because it mechanically relied on settlement records from Samvat 2008-09 to nullify a final order from 2015 without fresh adjudication or addressing the findings of the Divisional Commissioner.

Explanation that review is intended to correct apparent errors on the face of the record, not to re-adjudicate or take a different view without cogent reasons.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2019, granted liberty to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with Section 51 of the MPLRC, and allowed the writ petition with no order as to costs.