STATE OF M.P. Vs. SHIV SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by a common order passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of the two writ petitions filed by the petitioner/respondent No. 1 that respondents -appellants have come up in the present two Letters Patent Appeals seeking redress praying for the setting -aside of the impugned order, disposing of both the writ petitions.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 at length and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No. 1 had filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 1289/1994 on 20 -10 -1994 challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue granting permission to the Collector exercising the jurisdiction under section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to review the order passed by his predecessor in office dated 27 -8 -1991 with a direction to enquire as to why the land in dispute had been recorded in the khasara as "Chamoi extra Nazul" observing that in fact the nature of the description of the land in dispute should have been chamoi and the entry showing it "extra Nazul" appeared to be unauthorised. The Collector was directed to examine the revenue records relating to the period anterior to the settlement or misal bandobast in order to find out the correctness of the entry. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had prayed for the quashing of the order passed by the Board of Revenue referred to hereinabove and had further sought for a writ of prohibition seeking to restrain the respondents from reviewing the grant in his favour. Reliance had been placed in support of the aforesaid relief on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Usha Devi and others. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 1990 RN 77, clarifying that suo motu exercise of the power has to be done within reasonable period of time and the extent of reasonable period is to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case.