Power Of Revision Doesn’t Confer Unrestricted Authority To Repeatedly Reopen Matters That Have Attained Finality: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Collector’s Order
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also held that any subsequent attempt to reconsider the same issue would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier order.
While quashing a Collector’s order passed in a suo motu revision in a land dispute matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the power of revision is not intended to confer an unrestricted authority to repeatedly reopen matters which have already attained finality.
The High Court also held that any subsequent attempt to reconsider the same issue would not amount to an exercise of revisional jurisdiction but to an impermissible review of the earlier order.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Collector in Suo Motu Revision, whereby the Patta granted in favour of the late Ram Singh was cancelled. Consequently, the sale deeds executed pursuant to the said Patta were declared null and void, and the land in question was held to be Government land.
The Single Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held, “The power of revision is a supervisory jurisdiction intended to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities or material irregularities committed by subordinate authorities. Such power is not intended to confer an unrestricted authority to repeatedly reopen matters which have already attained finality. Once the revisional authority has exercised its jurisdiction, examined the legality of the proceedings and rendered a final decision, the jurisdiction stands exhausted. In the absence of any express statutory provision conferring power of review or permitting successive revisions on the same subject matter, the authority becomes functus officio. Any subsequent attempt to reconsider the same issue would amount not to an exercise of revisional jurisdiction but to an impermissible review of the earlier order.”
Advocate Prakash Chandra Chandil represented the petitioners while Govt. Advocate Yogesh Kumar Parasar represented the respondent/State.
Factual Background
The land originally recorded as charnoi land was cultivable and the competent revenue authorities allotted different portions thereof to nearly fifty eligible persons after due demarcation and partition proceedings by registering a case. The petition concerned only Survey No. 60/2 admeasuring 1.500 hectares, which was allotted to late Ram Singh by the Tahsildar. After acquiring bhumiswami rights, Ram Singh, during his lifetime, transferred different portions of the land in favour of various purchasers through registered sale deeds. The petitioners were bona fide purchasers who acquired their respective portions for valuable consideration.
After more than three decades, a representation was submitted by the Tahsildar, on the basis of which the Collector initiated suo motu revisional proceedings by registering a suo motu revision case. The Collector dismissed the revision, holding that although the land was originally recorded as charnoi, it was cultivable land and, therefore, the allotment made by the Tahsildar in favour of Ram Singh was legal and valid. The Collector further held that the transfers effected by Ram Singh were all in accordance with law.
Despite the aforesaid final adjudication, the Tahsildar again submitted another representation before the Collector alleging irregularities in the original allotment. Acting upon the said representation, the Collector registered another suo motu revisional proceeding and the matter was referred to the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, for a detailed inquiry. The inquiry report further opined that no action could legally be taken against the legal heirs of Ram Singh or the subsequent purchasers. Notwithstanding these findings, the Collector, by the impugned order, cancelled the original lease, declared the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners to be null and void, and held the land to be Government land. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code provides the Collector with powers to review his own revisional order, but within the four corners of the provisions of Section 51. The Bench was of the view that the Collector had finally adjudicated the legality of the allotment in Suo Moto Revision, where he lacked jurisdiction to reopen the very same controversy merely because another representation had been submitted by the Tahsildar.
The Bench noted that the entire foundation of the second suo motu revision was the identical allotment order, the same grant of bhumiswami rights in the year 1985 and the very same subsequent sale transactions which had already been examined in the earlier revisional proceedings. “There is no finding in the impugned order regarding discovery of any new material, fraud or suppression of facts which could justify reopening of the earlier concluded adjudication. Mere submission of another representation by the Tahsildar could not revive a jurisdiction which had already been exercised and exhausted. If such repeated exercises of suo motu revisional power are permitted, there would be no finality to administrative adjudication and every concluded matter could be reopened repeatedly at the instance of the same authority, which is wholly alien to the rule of law”, it added.
The Bench further found that the Collector had completely discarded the inquiry report without assigning any reason for disagreeing with the conclusions recorded therein. “An administrative authority exercising quasijudicial jurisdiction cannot ignore material evidence placed before it nor can it reject a duly constituted inquiry report without recording cogent reasons”, it stated.
The Bench took note of the fact that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners had been declared null and void and their proprietary rights had been extinguished without issuing any notice to them or affording them an opportunity of hearing. Noting that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers claiming title through registered sale deeds and that their civil rights were directly affected by the impugned order, the Bench held, “Any order adversely affecting vested proprietary rights could not have been passed behind their back.”
Thus, holding that the initiation of the second suo motu revisional proceedings itself was wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction, the Bench quashed the impugned order so far as it pertained to Ramsingh S/o Nandu Khatik and his successors-in-title, i.e. the petitioners. The petition thus came to be allowed in the aforestated terms.
Cause Title: Dr. Ganesh Ram Jain and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:19722)