TARACHAND YADAV Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 28/12/2022(P-1) passed by Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Revenue Revision Case No.202110272200021 (14/A-21/2022-23) wherein invoking the suo-motu revisional power under Sec. 50 read with Sec. 165(7-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'the Code'), as respondent No.6 Ramvilok had alienated the land by way of registered sale deed without the permission of the Collector in favour of the petitioner along with other respondents 7 to 17 was declared void and the Patta land was returned in favour of the respondent No.6.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a land bearing Khasra No.32/6, area 0.03 hectare situated at village Semli, P.H. No.11, R.C. Balrampur, Distt. BalrampurRamanujgaj(C.G.) by way of registered sale deed dtd. 11/3/2014 from Ramvilok(respondent No.6). Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was duly entered in the revenue record by the competent authority. The aforesaid land was leased out to respondent No.6 under the scheme of State Government, for issuance of the patta/lease. In Revenue Case No.1529/A3/1968/69, after due procedure, respondent No.5 filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as other purchaser of the land with an allegation that the patta/lease was forged. Upon receipt of such complaint, respondent No.2/Collector called for a report from the Tehsildar, Balrampur as well as SDO, Balrampur and after receipt of report, a suo-motu revision was taken up and mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner along with other purchaser was cancelled in view of Sec. 165(7-b) of Land Revenue Code. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Sec. 50 of the Land Revenue Code, there is no limitation prescribed for taking suo-motu action, however, it is settled law that revenue authority can exercise suo-motu revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable period and the said discretion must be exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge, therefore, the impugned order whereby the mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner way back cannot be cancelled in view of Sec. 50 read with Sec. 165(7-b) of the Code, only on the ground that the owner has not obtained permission from the Collector. He would further submit that the aforesaid land which was leased out in favour of the seller and the patta was granted prior to amendment of the Land Revenue Code as the sub-sec. 7-b of Sec. 165 of Land Revenue Code was inserted vide Act No.15/1980 and the same is effected from 24/10/1980. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ranveer Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[A.I.R. 2011 M.P.27] to submit that exercise of suomotu powers by revenue revisional authority where legislature has not fixed any period of time does not mean that it has unbridled powers to exercise them at any point of time, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period. He referred to Para 38 of the aforesaid judgment which was also referred by this Court in the matter of Wadi Kumar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others in Writ Petition No.2963 of 2004, decided on 1/4/2015, at Para 15 of the said judgment. Para 38 reads thus:-