MULLO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt.20.10.2004 (Annexure P/1) and dt.30.12.2000 (Annexure P/2).

(2.) A land of survey No.353 min. area 2 bigha situate at village Bhatiyara, Tahsil Jaura was settled in favour of the petitioner vide order dt.7.1.1994. Some complaints were made to the Collector against the aforesaid settlement and other orders passed by the Tahsildar. The Collector directed Mr.R.K.Shrivastava, Dy. Collector Morena to conduct an enquiry. The authority conducted the enquiry and found that the order of settlement passed in favour of the petitioner was contrary to law. The petitioner was not eligible in regard to settlement of land. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice. After receiving the reply, the Collector passed the order dt.30.12.2000 (Annexure P/2) and cancelled the settlement in exercise of powers of suo motu revision under the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, a revision was filed before the Collector, that has also been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Mr.R.K.Shrivastava, Dy.Collector Morena did not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order passed by the Collector was illegal and the Collector has no power and authority to entertain the suo motu revision after a period of six years. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (5) M.P.H.T. 137 (FB).