VIRENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking following reliefs: -

(2.) NO exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that on consent basis the mutation orders were passed by the Revenue Inspector on 29.3.1979, 20.10.1979, 7.12.1980, 24.6.1981, 15.11.1981 and 8.2.1984. Thereafter an application was submitted by the present petitioners on 28.4.1998, Annexure A/8 inviting the attention of Commissioner, Rewa that when the order of mutation was made by the Revenue Inspector they were minors since their father passed away on 30.5.1970 and the widow mother was an illiterate lady. Further in the application it is averred that without executing any document of sale or any instrument conveying the property, such order of mutation on consent basis could not be passed by the Revenue Inspector, hence it was prayed that the matter may be taken up in suo motu and by exercising suo motu revisional powers the aforesaid orders of mutation passed by Revenue Inspector may be set aside.

(3.) ON receiving the show causes notices, the respondents 2 to 9 submitted their preliminary objections that the suo motu power cannot be exercised after long lapse of decades together in between 16 to 20 years and, therefore, the show cause notices be dismissed. The matter was heard by the learned Commissioner and ultimately he found that the mutation order which was passed on consent basis was unwarranted under the law and set aside the same. The order of learned Commissioner dated 04.06.1999 was assailed by the respondents 2 to 9 before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior who on 29.10.2001 set aside the order of Commissioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.