Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Swaroop vs State Of M.P on 12 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513
1 WP-1427-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 1427 of 2012
RAM SWAROOP
Versus
STATE OF M.P
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for legal heirs of petitioner.
Shri K.K.Prajapati - Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 24/11/2025
Delivered on : 12/12/2025
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, prayed most humbly to be allowed the petition by the petitioner against the respondent for the passing order in so-moto proceeding in revision without jurisdiction initializing the discretionary powers, vested in respondent against the provisions of law and be restored the lease of petitioner vide order in Case No.84- 85/A-59 dated 4-7-1986 for multipurpose of land by leased holder, containing the area of 2 bighas. Any other suitable relief order or direction of facts and circumstances of case, the Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be passed."
2. The brief facts leading to filing the writ petition are as under:
2.1. Vide order dated 04.07.1986 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura, while preparation of the 'Nistar Patrak', certain unoccupied Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 2 WP-1427-2012 land situated at Village Sumavali, Jaura, bearing Survey No.1934/1 Rakwa 2 bigha, was declared to be cultivable (Kabilkashta). Thereafter, a patta of the said land was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.03.1987 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, Jaura, in Case No.9/85-86/अ-19.
2.2. An inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector, District Morena, who found that the land in question, on which the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner, was shown as grazing land (Charnoi Bhumi) in the revenue records. He further found that, in terms of Section 237 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLR Code, 1959'), the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to declare Charnoi land as Kabilkashta.
2.3. On the basis of the inquiry report so submitted, the Collector, Morena, instituted suo motu proceedings in Case No.76/98-99/ व.िन. and, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2000 restored the land in question as Charnoi land and set aside the order dated 17.03.1987 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, Jaura.
2.4. The aforesaid order dated 10.04.2000 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morea, by filing a revision in Case No.239/99-2000/िन. under Section 50 of MPLR Code, 1959, on the ground that the Collector could not have exercise suo motu revisional powers after a period of 14 years. The revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, vide order dated 05.01.2007. The petitioner thereafter challenged the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2007 before the State Government in a revision in Case No.F1- Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 3 WP-1427-2012 14/2007/सात िनग. proceedings, which were also rejected vide order dated 19.09.2011. The petitioner has thereafter filed the instant writ petition claiming the relief as stated hereinabove.
2.5 Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the petitioner submits that the power of suo motu revision could not have been exercised by the Commissioner after a period of 14 years from the date of passing of the settlement order dated 17.03.1987 in favour of the petitioner by the Naib- Tahsildar, Jaura. He further submits that, in his revision before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, the records of the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner whereby, the Patta was granted, was summoned but vide communication dated 16.05.2006 (Annexure A/7), the Commissioner was informed that on account of a fire accident in some portion of the record room, the records could not be made available by then, yet, in the non-availability of the records, the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, proceeded to decide the revision and dismissed the same vide order dated 05.01.2007.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the petitioner submits that though heavy reliance has been placed by the authorities below on Section 237 of MPLR Code, 1959 to contend that the power to declare a Charnoi land to the Kabilkashta is vested with the Collector and therefore, the said power could not have been exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, the authorities below have not considered Section 234 of MPLR Code, 1959, which empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to prepare 'Nistar Patrak' and, while doing so, to pass appropriate orders in respect of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 4 WP-1427-2012 unoccupied land in the village. He further places reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, to buttress his submission that the power of suo motu revision could not have been exercised after 14 years. Accordingly, he submits that the orders impugned in the writ petition deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to the return filed, submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura, vide order dated 04.07.1987, declared the Charnoi land as Kabilkashta, which order was without jurisdiction, as the said power vests with the Collector under Section 237 of MPLR Code, 1959. He submits that subsequently, the same land came to be settled in favour of petitioner by the Naib Tehsildar. He submits that when the foundational order itself was without jurisdiction, no rights accrued in favour of the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was afforded by the Collector while passing the order dated 10.04.2000, and the petitioner has failed to point out any provision under which the Sub- Divisional Officer could have declared the land to be Kabilkashta. Accordingly, the authorities, on the basis of the material on record, have passed a just and proper order, which does not warrant any interference in the present petition. He further submits that the ground of delay in exercising suo motu revisional power is not available to the petitioner, as the same were exercised within limitation from the date of knowledge of the alleged Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 5 WP-1427-2012 illegality, and the first notice was issued by the Collector to the petitioner on 15.09.1992, as it is evident from the order sheets placed on record as Annexure R-1. He submits that the matter remained pending before the Collector thereafter on account of certain amendments in the MPLR Code, 1959; however, the initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings was within reasonable time and the same is even permissible in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). Learned counsel appearing for the State also places reliance on the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govardhan Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2007 (4) MPLJ 618, to support his contention that the SDO could not have declared Charnoi land as Kabilkashta, and the said power was exercisable by the Collector only.
5 . No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Insofar as the issue of delayed exercise of suo motu revision powers by the Collector, as contended by the petitioner, is concerned, the return filed by the State indicates that the order of settlement was passed in favour of the petitioner by Tehsildar, Jaura, on 17.03.1987. The inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector Morena, in respect of the same, and when the illegality came to be noticed, suo motu revision proceedings were instituted by the Collector by issuance of notice to the petitioner on 15.09.1992. The aforesaid factual averment of the respondents in their return is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. The contention thus raised by the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 6 WP-1427-2012 that the powers of suo motu revision were exercised by the Collector after a period of 14 years is not factually correct. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the power of suo motu revision was exercised by the Collector by institution of proceedings vide order dated 15.09.1992 within limitation.
8. A perusal of the order dated 10.04.2000 passed by the Collector, Morena, indicates that the Collector proceeded on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Collector indicating that the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 04.07.1986, could not have declared the land in question to be Kabilkastha, as the same was earmarked as Charnoi land, and the powers under Section 237 of MPLR Code, 1959, are not vested with the Sub- Divisional Officer.
9. The copy of the order dated 04.07.1986 has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure A/1. The typed copy whereof has also been filed. A perusal of the order dated 04.07.1986 indicates that the proceedings were instituted by the Sub-Divisional Officer for the preparation of Nistar Patrak, and in the said proceedings, the unoccupied land in question, (earmarked) as Charnoi was declared Kabilkastha by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Though the petitioner has tried to raise the ground of applicability of Section 234 of MPLR Code, 1959 exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer in passing the order dated 04.07.1986 but the record indicates that the aforesaid ground was not raised by the petitioner before either of the authorities below.
10. The perusal of the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the State Government rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner, particularly in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 7 WP-1427-2012 paragraph 6, specifically records that the petitioner has failed to point out any provision of law empowering the Sub-Divisional Officer to change the status of the land as it existed at the relevant time of passing the order dated 04.07.1986.
11 . The scope of exercise of power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 234 of MPLR Code, 1959, and exercise of power under Section 237 of MPLR Code, 1959 by the Collector came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govardhan Gurjar (supra). In paragraph 7, the Full bench of this Court has observed as under :
"7. It will be clear from the analysis of the two Division Bench decisions in Amar Singh v. Raghuvir Singh (supra) and Daya Ram v. State of M.P. (supra) that when the Division Bench rendered the decision in Amar Singh v. Raghuvir Singh (supra), sub-section (3) of section 237 authorising the Collector to divert unoccupied land for agricultural purpose was not in existence and hence the Division Bench held, in that case, that the power of the Collector to divert land in sub-section (2) of section 237 was only for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 237 inter se and that the power to permit change of classification from 'Charnoi' land used for non-agricultural purposes to cultivable land used for agricultural purposes was vested in the Sub Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of section 234 of the Amendment Act No. 24 of 1961 but by the time, the Division Bench rendered the judgment in Daya Ram v. State of M.P. (supra), sub-section (3) had been introduced in section 237 of the Code with effect from 5-1-1998 by M.P. Act No. 1 of 1998 empowering the Collector to divert unoccupied land set apart for 'Charnoi' purposes as mentioned in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 237 to abadi or agricultural purposes subject to the minimum percentage of agricultural land mentioned therein and subject to rules made under the Code and for this reason the Division Bench held in that case that sub-section (3) of section 234, which deals with preparation of 'Nistar Patrak' by the Sub Divisional Officer and modification of entries in the 'Nistar Patrak' by him, and sub-section (3) of section 237, which authorises the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 8 WP-1427-2012 Collector to divert unoccupied land for the purposes mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 237 into abadi or for agricultural purposes, operate in two different fields."
12. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govardhan Gurjar (supra) has thus opined that section 234 (3) of MPLR Code, 1959 prior to amendment w.e.f. 5/1/1998 dealt with the authority of SDO to change classification from 'Charnoi' land used for non-agricultural purpose to cultivable land used for agricultural purpose whereas, sub-section 3 of Section 237 of MPLR Code, 1959, as incorporated by the amendment w.e.f. 5.01.1998 authorized the Collector to divert unoccupied land for the purposes mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 237 into abadi or for agricultural purposes, and both the sections operate in two different fields.
13. The fact that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena was decided vide order dated 05.01.2007 without receiving the original record is also indisputable.
14. Since the issue of applicability of Section 234 of MPLR Code, 1959 was neither raised by the petitioner nor considered by either of the revisional authorities, i.e., the Commissioner as well as the State Government, in view whereof, this Court is inclined to allow the petition preferred by the petitioner in part. The order dated 05.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, and order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the State Government are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner afresh, taking into consideration the applicability/inapplicability of Section 234 of MPLR Code, 1959, by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32513 9 WP-1427-2012 Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura, in passing the order dated 04.07.1986 in Case No.84/85-86/A-59 and depending upon its outcome also consider its effect on the order of settlement dated 4/7/1986 passed in favour of petitioner by Naib Tahsildar, Jaura.
15. On the petitioner producing the certified copy of the order passed in the instant case today before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, within a period of 45 days from today, the case No.239/1999-2000/ revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, would stand restored and the Commissioner shall proceed to decide the same on merits afresh in accordance with law and as observed hereinabove after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respondents as well.
16. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
17. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE AK/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 12-12-2025 19:33:27