ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. Order dated 7.8.2013 passed by Board of Revenue is being questioned vide this petition, which though captioned as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in substance, as evident from the nature of relief, is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The controversy, relates back to year 1973 when a consolidation proceedings were initiated in village Chirpura, District Tikamgarh wherein land bearing Khasra Nos. 80, 22, 551, 558, 70, 13, 17, 565, 10 and 19 area 5.05 acre belonging to the petitioner was taken up under the scheme by order dated 20.8.1973 passed by Collector Tikamgarh in Case No.44/A-54/72-73. Revision preferred by one of the villager before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 20.8.1973 was dismissed on 25.11.1975 being time barred. Subsequently complaints were received from the villagers against consolidation proceedings and since the proceedings were not finalised Collector Tikamgarh after seeking leave from Board of Revenue reviewed its order dated 20.8.1973 by recalling it by his order dated 11.1.1988. The order was upheld by the Commissioner, Settlement Madhya Pradesh by order dated 8.4.2010. 4. Commissioner, Settlement negatived the claim of the petitioner that under consolidation, the petitioner has been given the possession of village ‘Gochar Land’. The Commissioner, Settlement found the petitioner encroaching Gochhar Land under the garb of consolidation/settlement. Commissioner Settlement also upheld the procedure adhered to by the Collector in recalling the order dated 20.8.1973. 4. Commissioner, Settlement negatived the claim of the petitioner that under consolidation, the petitioner has been given the possession of village ‘Gochar Land’. The Commissioner, Settlement found the petitioner encroaching Gochhar Land under the garb of consolidation/settlement. Commissioner Settlement also upheld the procedure adhered to by the Collector in recalling the order dated 20.8.1973. In its order Commissioner Settlement held : ^^4- izdj.k esa dysDVj Vhdex<+ ls izfrosnu fy;k x;k tks layXu gSA blesa mYys[k fd;k fd ;g lgh gS fd xzke fpjiqjk esa iz’uxr izdj.k esa iwoZ dysDVj ds vkns’k fnukad 20-08-73 }kjk pdcanh dh LohÑfr iznku dh xbZ vkSj ftlesa vkosnd dh Hkwfe Hkh ‘kkfey FkhA pdcanh vkns’k ikfjr gks tkus ds ckn dCtk ysdj vkosnd dks csn[ky ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh mDr Hkwfe ls dCtk NksMusa dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;kA ‘kklu ds funsZ’kkuqlkj pdcanh ;kstuk bl ftys ls vU;= LFkkukarfjr gks tkus ls LVkWQ ds LFkkukarj.k gks tkus ds dkj.k ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ikfjr vkns’kksa dk fØ;kUo;u ugha djk;k tk ldkA vkosnd dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd xzke ds pdcanh ;kstuk ds vkns’k ds rgr mls cnys esa xzke dh xkspj Hkwfe ij dCtk ns fn;k x;k D;ksa fd pdcanh vkns’k dk vey ‘kkldh; vfHkys[k esa ugha fd;k x;kA vkosnd us LosPNzk ls ‘kkldh; Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k dj j[kk gSA U;k;ky; }kjk rRdkyhu dysDVj ds vkns’k dks iquZfoykspu esa ysus ds iwoZ ekuuh; jktLo eaMy ls izdj.k Øekad 2@4@85@fnukad 25-3-1985 ds vuqlkj LohÑfr yh xbZ Fkh] rFkk pdcanh vkns’k esa mYysf[kr lHkh O;fDr;ksa dks fnukad 27-11-1987 dks dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl Hkstdj] U;k;ky; ds le{k Lo;a vFkok vius vfHkHkk”kd ds ek/;e ls izfr mRrj izLrqr djus dk ekSdk fn;k x;kA blesa vf/kdka’k xzkeokfl;ksa us pdcanh vkns’k ykxw u djus dh fou; dh FkhA blfy;s xzkeokfl;ksa dh fou; ij dyDVj us vkns’k fnukad 11-1-1988 }kjk xq.k nks”k ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fn;kA ;g ckr vlR; gS fd pdcanh vkns’k dk fØ;kUo;u iwoZ esa djk;k x;kA pdcanh dk vkns’k ek= gh ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk ‘kkldh; vfHkys[k esa bldk dksbZ bUnzkt ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh ekSds ij vkosnd dks nwljh Hkwfe ij dCtk fn;k x;kA bl vk/kkj ij vkosnd dk iqujh{k.k vkosnu fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA** 5. Questioning the order dated 11.1.1988 before Board of Revenue, petitioner filed a revision. Questioning the order dated 11.1.1988 before Board of Revenue, petitioner filed a revision. That by order dated 7.8.2013 the Revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, which has led the petitioner to file present Writ Petition seeking quashment of order dated 11.1.1988, 8.4.2010 and 7.8.2013 principally on the ground that it was beyond the powers of the Collector to have revived its order dated 20.8.1973; whereby, the proceedings were initiated for consolidation of land in question and that the Revisional Authorities failed to appreciate that the Collector exceeded its jurisdiction. 6. The question is did Collector in the given facts exceeded his jurisdiction. It can be tested on the anvil of provisions contained in Chapter XVI of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 7. An initiation of consolidation proceedings under section 206 is on an application by any two or more Bhumiswamis in a village. The Collector may also suo motu initiate the proceedings. Section 209 provides for preparation of scheme for consolidation of holdings. Section 210 stipulates that the Collector may either confirm the scheme with or without modification or refuse to confirm it after considering the objection or objections, if any, to the scheme of consolidation and the recommendation of the Consolidation Officer. The decision of the Collector, subject to any order that may be passed in revision by the Settlement Commissioner under section 50, shall be final. Furthermore, section 211 lays down the procedure on confirmation stipulating therein : “211. Procedure on confirmation.- (1) Upon confirmation of the scheme of consolidation, the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, demarcate the boundaries of the holdings and shall proceed to announce the decisions finally made and cause to be prepared in accordance with the scheme, a new field map, record-ofrights, other records prescribed under section 114, Nistar Patrak and Wajib-ul-arz. (2) The new records prepared under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been prepared under Chapter IX or XVII, as the case may be. 8. In the case at hand, true it is, as borne out from record that, an order for consolidation of Khasra No.400/3 was issued by Collector, by order dated 20.8.1973; however, no material is brought on record to establish that the proceedings were completed as stipulated under Chapter XVI, in absence whereof there was no devolution of right over village ‘Gochar Land’ in favour of the petitioner. As 212 and 213 respectively stipulates : “212. As 212 and 213 respectively stipulates : “212. Right of Bhumiswamis to possession of holdings.- The Bhumiswami affected by the scheme of consolidation, if they have not entered into possession under sub-section (5) of section 209, shall be entitled to possession of the holdings allotted to them under the scheme, from the commencement of the agricultural year next following confirmation; and the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, put them, by warrant in possession of the holdings to which they are entitled. Provided that if all the Bhumiswamis agree, they may, after confirmation, be put into possession of their holdings by the Consolidation Officer from any earlier date. “213. Transfer of rights of Bhumiswamis in holdings.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, the rights of Bhumiswamis in their holdings shall, for the purpose of giving effect to any scheme of consolidation affecting them, be transferable by exchange or otherwise and no person shall be entitled to object to or interfere with any transfer made for the said purpose. (2) The Consolidation Officer may also transfer by exchange or otherwise any land belonging to the State Government where such transfer is necessary for the purpose of giving effect to any scheme of consolidation. 9. Since the record reveals that there was no consolidation and consequential devolution in favour of the petitioner of the land in question, the Collector was well within his jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint by the villagers against consolidation and recalling his earlier order. This was in consonance to the provisions contained under section 207 of the Code which stipulates : “207. Rejection of application.-(1) If on receipt of any such application or at any stage of the proceedings thereon, there appears to be good and sufficient reason for disallowing the application or for excluding the case of any applicant from consideration, the Consolidation Officer may submit the application to the Collector with a recommendation that the application be rejected in whole or in part, or that the proceedings be quashed. (2) The Collector, on receipt of the recommendation, may accept it and pass orders accordingly or may order further inquiry. 10. (2) The Collector, on receipt of the recommendation, may accept it and pass orders accordingly or may order further inquiry. 10. When action of Collector, its affirmation by the Settlement Commissioner and the Revenue Board is adjudged on the anvil of the provisions contained under Chapter XVI of Code, 1959 and the given facts of present case, this Court does not perceive any illegality in the decision by the authorities concerned that the occupation of the ‘Gochar Land’ by the petitioner is without authority. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.