JUDGMENT 1. In this case the lower Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent No.1 by assailing the order of Tahsildar dated 29.9.1968, whereby in suo motu revision the patta granted to the respondent was cancelled. The first appellate Court has reversed the aforesaid findings relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Gujrat v. Patel Raghvnath and another AIR 1969 SC 1297 as well as Ravinarayan v. State of M.P. and another, 2000 Rajasva Nirnaya 16. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the appellate Court judgment are reproduced here as under :- ¼19½ vxyk iz’u ;g mRiUu gksrk gS fd vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us rglhynkj ds vkns’k fnukad 29-9-1968 dks ;qfDr;qDr le; esa iqujh{k.k esa lquokbZ gsrq fy;k FkkA vkns’k fnukad 31-3-1983 ds voyksdu ls Li”V gS fd vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds mDr vkns’k dks iqujh{k.k o”kZ 1978&79 esa izdj.k ntZ dj fy;k FkkA bl izdkj vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds vkns”k fnukad 31-3-1983 dks yxHkx 10 o”kZ Ik’pkr~ iqujh{k.k esa fy;k FkkA iz’u ;g gS fd D;k 10 o”kZ dh vof/k dks ;qfDr;qDr le; dgk tk ldrk gSA e-iz-Hkw-j-la- dh /kkjk 50 esa iqujh{k.k gsrq le;kof/k fu/kkZfjr ugha dh xbZ gS ek= ;qfDr;qDr le; esa iqujh{k.k djus dh ‘kfDr;ka nh xbZ gSaA loksZPp U;k;ky; us LVsV vkWQ xqtjkr fo- iVsy jk?koukFk ,oa vU;] , vkbZ vkj 1969 ,l lh 1297 esa ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd & ^^tgka ij Lo&izsj.kk ls fdlh vkns’k dks iqujh{k.k esa ysus gsrq ;qfDr;qDr le; fn;k x;k gS] ogka ij ;qfDr;qDr le; dk rkRi;Z dqN ekg ls gSA** ;gh vfHker e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; us jfoukjk;.k fo- e-iz- jkT; o vU;] 2000 jktLo fu.kZ; 16] ds ekeys esa e-iz-Hkw-j-la- dh /kkjk 50 esa mijksDr ;qfDr;qDr le; dh O;k[;k djrs gq, vuqlfjr fd;kA ¼20½ ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us eks- dfo fo- QkfrekckbZ bczkfge] 1998¼1½ ,e-ih-oh- uksV~l 26 esa ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd e-iz-Hkw-j-la- dh èkkjk 50 ds varxZr dksbZ Lo&izsj.kk ls ,d o”kZ dh vof/k ys ysuk v;qfDr;qDr gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us rglhynkj ds vkns’k fnukad 29-9-1968 dks yxHkx 10 o”kZ Ik’pkr~ iqujh{k.k esa fy;k gSA mijksDr U;k; n`”Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr vfHker dks ns[krs gq, vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds }kjk 10 o”kZ i’pkr~ rglhynkj ds vkns’k fnukad 29-9-1968 dk iqujh{k.k djuk v;qfDr;qDr gSA** 2. As per the appellant, the proceeding to recall the patta started in the year 1978-79 which itself shows that the proceeding started after five years and that was not within time. Even otherwise, the action taken by S.D.O. suo moto as in the revision is contrary to a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Ranveer Singh and others v. State of M.P. reported in 2010 RN 409 = 2010 JLJ 77 = 2010(5) MPHT 137 (FB). 3. According to the appellant, 180 days would start from the date of knowledge but there is nothing on record as to when the S.D.O. came to know about the impugned order. 4. No substantial question of law is involved for consideration in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to the cost.