Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janki Prasad (Deleted) Through Lrs (1) ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23956
1 WP-34656-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 25 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34656 of 2025
JANKI PRASAD (DELETED) THROUGH LRS (1) ISHWAR PRASAD AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ravindra Dixit Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
Advocate General/State.
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28/02/2013 passed by the Collector, District Ashoknagar in exercise of the suo motu power under section 50 of MPLRC, whereby, land bearing survey No. 1448 area 0.314 hectare, survey no.1449 area 0.042 hectare, survey no. 1450 area 0.199 hectare, survey no. 675 min area 0.554 hectare out of area 1.677 hectare situated in Village Khiriyadevat were settled in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 05/06/1991 passed by Tehsildar Pargana Isagarh, District Guna has been set aside. The petition also challenges the order dated 21/09/2016 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28/02/2013 was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially also Additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 9/27/2025 7:11:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23956 2 WP-34656-2025 Collector, District Ashoknagar vide order dated 30/03/1998 exercised the power of suo motu revision and interfered into the settlement order dated 05/06/1991 passed in favour of the petitioner, against which, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in revision case No. 82/98-99 Nigrani, wherein, vide order dated 30/07/2002 revision preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior holding that in the matter of settlement of land by the Tehsildar under the provisions of revenue book circular, the power to exercise the suo motu revision against the order passed by the Tehsildar are exerciseable by Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, the earlier order dated 30/03/1998 passed by the Additional Collector, District Ashoknagar was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector with observation that in case any illegality in settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner is found then proposal for taking the matter in suo motu revision shall be made to the competent authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order dated 30/07/02 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in favour of the petitioner was not assailed by the State before any forum and, therefore, the same has attained finality. In the teeth of said order, the Collector Ashoknagar again took the settlement order dated 05/06/1991 in suo motu revision and passed the impugned order dated 28/02/2013, whereby, settlement made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order dated 30/07/02 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has been allowed to attain finality by the State authority, the only recourse available to the Collector was to make proposal to the competent authority and he himself could Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 9/27/2025 7:11:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23956 3 WP-34656-2025 not have exercised the power of suo motu revision. That, apart he submits that the power of suo motu revision since was exercised beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh since dead through LRs Kishori Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 it was not within the jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the order dated 28/02/2013. Accordingly, he prays for allowing of the instant writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
6 . On the other hand, learned State counsel by supporting the impugned order dated 28/02/2013 submits that the petitioner was initially represented before the Collector concerned through his counsel as is apparent from the order dated 28/02/2013 itself and thereafter, he did not appear and therefore, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. They have not brought to the knowledge of the Collector the earlier order passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior dated 30/07/2002 and in the absence of any knowledge, the Collector has rightly proceeded into the matter. That apart he submits that so far as applicability of full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) is concerned, the same has been clarified by subsequent judgments passed by this Court, wherein, it has been stated that period of limitation of 180 days would commence from the date of knowledge of illegality. He further submits that even if the order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior is taken to be unchallenged then also the issue of suo motu revision was kept open in the same order in case any illegality is found in settlement order in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8 . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 9/27/2025 7:11:39 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23956 4 WP-34656-2025
9. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court in the instant case is as to whether in the view of the order dated 30/07/2002 passed by t h e Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in revision case No. 82/98-99 Nigrani in respect of same land and the same settlement order passed by the Tehsildar is it open for the Collector to exercise suo motu power for cancellation of settlement made in favour of petitioner under section 50 of MPLRC, 1959? 10 .The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1621 has held that principle of resjudicata applies to and binds quasi judicial authorities. Whenever a judicial or quasi judicial Tribunal gives a finding on the law or fact, its finding cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding unless reversed in appeal or revision or by way of writ proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act for decision is that it binds, whether right or wrong.
11. The facts of the instant case when tested on the anvil of the proposition of law referred herein above, it is seen that the order of settlement of the land in question in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 05/06/1991 passed by the Tehsildar, Pargana Ishagarh, District Guna was earlier taken into suo motu revision and was set aside by the Additional Collector vide order dated 30/09/1999 which order came to be set aside by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in revision No. 82/98-99 Nigrani, on the ground that the revisional jurisdiction against the order of settlement passed by the Tehsildar under the provisions of revenue book circular vest with Divisional Commissioner and has further granted liberty to the Additional Collector that in case any illegality is found in the matter of settlement by the Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner then the proposal for suo motu revision shall be referred to the competent authority. There is nothing on Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 9/27/2025 7:11:39 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23956 5 WP-34656-2025 record to suggest that the said order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in revision No. 82/98-99 Nigrani has been set aside by any higher forum.
12. In view whereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the recourse that was available to the Collector, Guna was to prepare a proposal for suo motu revision against the order of settlement dated 05/06/1991 passed by the Tehsildar and refer the same to the competent authority. The Collector himself could not have exercised the power of suo motu revision under section 50 of MPLRC.
13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 28/02/2013 passed by the Collector, Ashoknagar and the order dated 21/09/2016 passed by the Board of Revenue impugned in the instant writ petition are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open for the Collector, Guna to proceed in the matter in terms of order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in case No. 82/98-99/Nigrani.
14 . With the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and disposed of.
15 . All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 9/27/2025 7:11:39 PM