Sheela and Another vs State of M.P. and Others

Challenge in this writ appeal u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is made to an order dated 18/07/13 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 1144/13. Appellants herein had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 27/11/12 passed by the Collector, Shivpuri exercising the powers of suo motu u/s 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioners.

Petitioners were granted patta on the ground that they are landless persons belonging to the scheduled caste community. Patta was granted to them by the Tahsildar on 31/12/02. It seems that challenging the grant made, an appeal was filed before the competent appellate authority which was dismissed on 30th June, 2005. However, on a revision filed before the Additional Commissioner, the same was also dismissed on 5/01/11 but in the order, the Additional Commissioner found that the lease holders were not residents of the same village and considering the aforesaid, the Sub Divisional Officer submitted the proposal to the Collector to take up the matter in suo motu revision. The Sub Divisional Officer had conducted an enquiry and prima facie, found that petitioners are not residents of the same village and are not entitled to Patta.

Based on these findings, the matter was placed before the Collector for exercising the powers of suo motu revision. The Collector having interfered into the matter and passed the impugned order, the writ petition was filed.

In the writ petition, the learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that a proper enquiry into the matter was not conducted. The aggrieved persons i.e. the petitioners were not heard and it was also found that the order passed by the Collector was a non-speaking order. Accordingly, the order passed by the Collector impugned in the writ petition i.e. Annexure P-1 dated 27/11/12 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for passing fresh order after conducting a proper enquiry and hearing all concerned.

Now, this writ appeal is filed challenging the remand order mainly on the ground that as the Patta was granted in the year 2002, the powers of suo motu revision cannot be exercised after a period of 12 years. It is said that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., and various other cases, the powers of suo motu revision cannot be exercised after a period of 12 years and, therefore, the remand order is unsustainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the remand order made is proper and the same does not call for any interference. The matter is pending before the Collector wherein the enquiry is to be held and as petitioners would be heard at the time of enquiry, no prejudice is caused to them. That being so, the order of remand does not call for any interference.

As far as exercising powers of suo motu revision is concerned, it has been found by the learned Single Bench that the S.D.O. took note of the fact pertaining to grant of Patta only when the order was passed by the Additional Commissioner and as action is taken after conducting an enquiry by the Collector within a period of six months thereof, applying the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), the revision is within the time fixed by the Full Bench.

In doing so, no error has been committed by the learned Writ Court. In the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), it has been held that normally powers of suo motu revision should be exercised within a reasonable period and the reasonable period has been fixed to be 3-6 months. However, thereafter, it has been observed that if the error or illegality in the action taken is not deducted well in time, then the powers of suo motu revision can be exercised within a period of six months of coming to notice of error by the competent authority.

In this case, the Collector has exercised the powers of suo motu revision after six months into the matter as the S.D.O. initiated the enquiry only after the Additional Commissioner had passed the order on 5/01/11. There is no delay in exercising the powers of suo motu revision, as the error if any which had occurred in grant of Patta only came to the notice when a detailed enquiry into the matter was conducted by the S.D.O.

Accordingly, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed.