ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 8.11.2013 and 28.6.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior rejecting the review as well as appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner is also challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 29.3.2012 allowing the revision preferred by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and also the order passed in review dated 16.5.2012 filed by the petitioner setting aside the order of the Collector dated 2.6.2010. He is also challenging the order dated 23.9.2004 Annexure P-5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the application filed by the petitioner under section 113 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (For short ‘the Code’) for correction of the caste as “Rajput” rectifying the clerical mistake in the revenue record, was allowed. 2. After passing the order by the S.D.O recording the caste of petitioner as “Rajput” accepting his requests, one anonymous complaint was received by the Collector who called a report from the Tahsildar, which was received on 3.2.2007, however, relying upon the said report, the Collector passed the order on 2.6.2010 setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power of suo motu revision. It is to note here that after changing the caste, petitioner sold his property to respondent No. 1 on 5.11.2008 by a registered sale deed. After purchase, the order was passed by the Collector in exercise of suo motu power of revision on 2.6.2010, however, the respondent No. 1 as well as the petitioner both filed the separate revision before the Additional Commissioner. The stand taken by respondent No. 1 was also supported by the petitioner inter alia contending that the power as exercised by the Collector is beyond the prescribed time limit, and the findings recorded by him is not tenable under the law, however, the order of the Collector may be set aside. The Additional Commissioner passed the order on 29.3.2012 by which the order passed by the Collector exercising the suo motu power has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review before him, taking U turn from his earlier stand, but it was dismissed on 16.5.2012. The Additional Commissioner passed the order on 29.3.2012 by which the order passed by the Collector exercising the suo motu power has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review before him, taking U turn from his earlier stand, but it was dismissed on 16.5.2012. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue holding that as per section 47(a) of the Code, appeal would not lie against the order passed in review. Against which, review petition was filed which was also dismissed on found no error apparent on the face of record. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the order of Additional Commissioner passed in revision and review and the order of Board of Revenue in appeal and review, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned senior counsel Shri A.K. Sethi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the estoppel against law do not apply. In case the transfer of the land of a scheduled tribe is prohibited, it cannot be sold by change of caste, in furtherance to the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. It is his further contention that even the stand of respondent No. 1 was supported by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner, it may debar him to challenge the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the Board of Revenue has not considered the provisions of section 44(3) of the Code by which order passed in review varying or reversing any order shall be appealable, therefore, rejection of appeal by the Board of Revenue is not on valid reasons. It is further contended that the Board of Revenue has not dismissed the appeal on merit, however, in case the appeal was not found tenable, opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to convert it into a revision because it lies before the same authority and to allow him to convert the claim on merit. In view of the said submission, it is urged that the order passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for the decision afresh on merit. 4. On the other hand, learned Dy. In view of the said submission, it is urged that the order passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for the decision afresh on merit. 4. On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General, Shri Umesh Gajankush, referring the last ordersheet submit that this Court has directed to the Collector, District Dhar to file reply with an affidavit, alongwith all minutes and the revenue record with respect to the caste of the petitioner right from the year 1934. On account of not having such report, he prays for time. Looking to fact, whereby the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside by the Collector in suo motu exercise of power after more than one year which is further set aside by the Additional Commissioner is under challenge, however, the issue of exercising the power of suo motu revision after elapse of the time limit is the main issue for consideration, therefore, in the facts the reply on merit of the case is not required, however, prayer made to submit report do not appear to be just, which stands rejected. 5. During the course of hearing it is asked by the Court, whether State Government would support the findings recorded by the Collector Dhar or by the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. In this regard, it is submitted by him that if the transaction is prohibited by law then the Court may consider the facts of the case, however, urged that this petition may be decided on merit. The said argument do not deserve consideration, because in this petition, sale deed executed by petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 is not under challenge being prohibited transaction. Here only the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is under challenge, with further prayer to restore the order of the Collector. 6. Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel, representing respondent No. 1 submits that it is a case wherein the petitioner himself applied to the Sub Divisional Officer for change of his caste, stating that he belongs to ‘Rajput’ caste and not ‘Bhilala’, however, the said correction in the revenue record may be allowed. In support of the said contention, he has also filed various documents. In support of the said contention, he has also filed various documents. The Sub Divisional Officer after considering the material available before him, passed the order in exercise of the power under section 113 of the Code and directed that the caste of the petitioner be corrected as ‘Rajput’ in the revenue record. After such correction, the petitioner sold the property to respondent No. 1 in the year 2008 by a registered sale deed dated 5.11.2008. In the meantime, anonymous complaint was submitted to the Collector, District Dhar, on which a report was called from the Tahsildar which was submitted on 3.2.2007. On which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.2.2007 and on submitting the reply to the show cause, the order Annexure P-10 was passed by him. In the reply, it is said by the petitioner that he is ‘Rajput’ by caste and his father was an Emperor of Kunjrod Estate, however, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly made the correction regarding his caste in the revenue record in exercise of power under section 113 of the Code, therefore, the notice issued to him may be withdrawn. The Collector, Dhar, after more than three years from the date of the knowledge has passed the order setting aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of suo motu power of revision. It is urged that the said power cannot be exercised beyond the prescribed time limit of 180 days, as specified in section 50 of the Code, which interpreted by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2010 RN 409 = 2010(3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 . In such circumstances, the order passed by the Collector beyond the period is illegal and without jurisdiction, because the suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by him after such an inordinate delay. 7. It is further urged that in the meantime the petitioner sold the property to respondent No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 5.11.2008 after about four years from the date of change of his caste in September, 2004. 7. It is further urged that in the meantime the petitioner sold the property to respondent No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 5.11.2008 after about four years from the date of change of his caste in September, 2004. It is not a case wherein the petitioner has stated that prior to changing his caste an agreement was entered into with the respondent No. 1 and in support of the said agreement due to persuasion of respondent No. 1 the sale deed was executed by petitioner, which is challenged in this petition. It is submitted, when the suo motu power of revision was to be exercised and the reply was sought from the petitioner, he has reiterated his stand that his caste is ‘Rajput’ which has rightly been changed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the documents submitted by him, even then Collector has passed the order and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer merely looking to some revenue entries to which correction was applied. On challenging the said order by petitioner and respondent No. 1 in revision before the Additional Commissioner, it has rightly been set aside, however, till passing the order by the Additional Commissioner in revision the petitioner’s stand was that he is of ‘Rajput’ caste and his caste has rightly been entered as ‘Rajput’ in the revenue record by Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, all of a sudden, he filed a review petition taking U-turn with a plea that the correction as made by the Sub Divisional Officer is unjustified because he belongs to ‘Bhilala’ caste, which was rightly rejected by the Additional Commissioner in review and also in appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue and also in revision. While dismissing the appeal, the Board of Revenue held, it is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 47(a) of the Code. It is urged, the appeal would not lie and the review filed by the petitioner cannot be treated to be a review of the original order, in-fact, it would be a review of the order of revision, therefore, the provisions of section 44(3) of the Code would not apply to the present case and the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no substance. It is urged that when the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised by the Collector after lapse of three years and such order has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner, interference in this petition is not warranted and the remand of the matter to the Board of Revenue is not permissible. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the undisputed facts of this case it is apparent that the petitioner himself applied before the Sub-Divisional Officer to enter his caste as ‘Rajput’ in place of ‘Bhilala’, and filed various documents in support of his contention. The Sub-Divisional Officer after making reference of those documents in para-2 from sub-paras (1) to (11) found that entry of his caste ‘Bhilala’ is a clerical mistake, however, in exercise of powers under section 113 of the Code, directed that the caste of the petitioner namely Rajkumar Dhruv son of Narendrasingh be read as ‘Rajput’. Under section 113 of the Code, the Sub Divisional Officer may at any time correct or cause to be corrected any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record-of-rights. It is a case wherein the party (petitioner) himself admitted that it is a mistake committed while recording his caste in the revenue record, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly exercised the power while passing the order dated 23.9.2004. 9. On perusal of the order of the Collector Annexure P-10, it reveals that on a complaint received by him on 25.1.2007, he called the report from the Tahsildar, which was received on 3.2.2007. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.2.2007. The reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 29.1.2009. On perusal of the order of the Collector Annexure P-10, it reveals that on a complaint received by him on 25.1.2007, he called the report from the Tahsildar, which was received on 3.2.2007. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.2.2007. The reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 29.1.2009. In the reply to show cause notice, the petitioner has stated as under : ^^1- ;g fd lwpuki= pj.k Øekad 1 vlR; gksdj vLohdkj gS] tcfd vukosnd jktiwr lekt dk O;fDr gksdj vukosnd ds firk dqatjksn LVsV ds jktk gksdj jktiwr lekt ds lnL; gS] jktiwr lekt esa ifjokj esa vkuk&tkuk cPpksa dh fj'rsnkjh] 'kknhC;kg] [kkuk&ihuk] mBuk&cSBuk dbZ ihf<;ksa ls gksrk pyk vk jgk gksdj tUetkr jktiwr lekt ds lnL; gSA 2- ;g fd lwpuk pj.k Øekad&2 vLkR; gksdj vLohdkj gS] tcfd vukosnd ds firk }kjk fof/kor~ v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vukosnd dh futh LoRo o vkf/kiR; dh iSr`d d`f"k Hkwfe ds jktLo jsdkMZ esa xyrh ls jktiwr dh txg Hkhykyk fy[k fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldh tkudkjh gksrs gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vkosnd is'k dj fof/kor tkWp dh tkdj Hkwfe ds jktLo jsdkMZ esa Hkhykyk 'kCn dks de dj jktiwr 'kCn fof/k vuqlkj fy[kk x;k ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks jktLo jsdkMZ esa la'kks/ku djus dk vf/kdkj gSA 3- ;g fd lwpuki= pj.k Øekad&3 vlR; gksdj vLohdkj gS] tcfd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks vukosnd ds vkosnui= dks lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA Hkwy lq/kkj djus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dk dkuwuh vf/kdkj izkIr gSA 4- ;g fd lwpuki= pj.k Øekad&4 vlR; gksdj vLohdkj gS] tcfd vukosnd dh tkfr Hkhykyk ugh gS] jktiwr lekt dks tUetkr lnL; gSA dHkh Hkh vukosnd o mlds ifjokj esa lnL; us 'kklu ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ Qk;nk Hkhykyk 'kCn dk ugh mBk;k gSA bl laca/k esa vukosnd }kjk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vukosnd dh jktiwr tkfr ds laca/k esa egRoiw.kZ nLrkost is'k fd, gSA lk{; is'k dh xbZ gS ,oa fof/k vuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ;g vlR; gksdj vLohdkj gS fd vukosnd us viuh futh LoRo dh d`f"k Hkwfe dks fcØh djus ds fy, xSj vkfnoklh O;fDr dks djus ds fy;s Hkhykyk 'kCn gVk;k gS] tcfd vukosnd dHkh Hkh Hkhykyk lekt dh lnL; ugh jgkA jktLo deZpkfj;ksa dh xyrh ls vukosnd dh d`f"k Hkwfe ds jktLo jsdkMZ esa Hkhykyk 'kCn fy[k fn;k Fkk] ftldh tkudkjh feyrs gh vukosnd }kjk fof/kvuqlkj vkosnu is'k fd;k FkkA fdlh vKkr O;fDr }kjk O;fDrxr jaft'k fudkyus dh fu;r ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks >wBh f'kdk;r fnukad 13-2-2007 dks is'k dh xbZ gSA f'kdk;r esa ml O;fDr dk uke irk ugh gS] tcfd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fnukad 17-3-2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k FkkA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k djhc 3 o"kZ ckn Kkr O;fDr }kjk >qBh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr fuxjkuh ntZ dh tkdj vukosnd dks lwpuki= tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr fuxjkuh vof/k ckgj gksdj pyus ;ksX; ugh gksus ls fujLrh ;ksX; gSA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd vukosnd dk tokc Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mijksDr fuxjkuh fujLr fd, tkus dh —ik djsA** 10. On perusal of the said reply petitioner himself stated that he belong to ‘Rajput’ caste and his father was the Emperor of Kunjrod Estate. Thus Sub Divisional Officer on his application has rightly deleted his caste ‘Bhilala’ from the revenue record and recorded his original caste ‘Rajput’. But without considering the same, after three years from the knowledge of the order of Sub-Divisional Officer exercised the suo motu power of revision. While interpreting the provision of section 50 of the Code, the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), has crystallized the law on the point of exercising suo motu power of revision by the higher authorities prescribing the time limit for it. The majority view in the said judgment specified the time limit is 180 days while the minority view is of one year in case of State. In the present case the Collector came to know about the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 25.1.2007 however, he must have exercised the said power within a period of six months because the order was not against the State, but the Collector has passed the order on 2.6.2010 i.e. after about three years and five months. No explanation of delay is available on record, that too in a case of correction of the caste applied by the petitioner himself. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the Collector exercising suo motu power of revision setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is void ab-initio and the Collector was not having jurisdiction to exercise the said power after elapse prescribed time limit. 11. It is further to be noted here that the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner both challenged the order passed by the Collector before the Additional Commissioner by filing revisions. The petitioner himself stated that the power as exercised by the Collector is illegal because he belongs to ‘Rajput’ caste and the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly passed the order in his favour. The respondent No. 1 by filing the revision has stated that after the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, he purchased the property after verification of the revenue record wherein the caste of the petitioner was mentioned as ‘Rajput’ as per the orders of competent authority. The respondent No. 1 by filing the revision has stated that after the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, he purchased the property after verification of the revenue record wherein the caste of the petitioner was mentioned as ‘Rajput’ as per the orders of competent authority. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of the Collector not only on the ground of exercising the power belatedly, but, considering the merits of the case and analyzing the documents considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, from 2004 to 2012 the stand of the petitioner was that the order of change of his caste has rightly been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. During this period, he also sold the property to respondent No. 1 and thereafter he switched over to his stand and filed a review petition against the order of Additional Commissioner inter alia contending that such power has not been properly exercised. The Additional Commissioner rejected the said review by order dated 16.5.2012 holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground as specified under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made out. 12. Challenging the order of review alone, an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The argument of counsel for the petitioner is that in exercise of powers under section 44(3) of the Code the appeal against the order of review is tenable, however, the Board of Revenue committed error in not entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the said context, the provisions of section 44 of the Code is relevant. section 44(1) of the Code states that save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder. It is to be noted here that section 44 of the Code would apply against the original order which is appealable as prescribed in Section 44 (1) (a) to (g) and section 44(2)(i) to (iii) of the Code. Learned senior counsel is unable to make out a case that order of the Additional Commissioner is an order passed under section 44 (1) (a) to (g) or under section 44(2)(i) to (iii). Learned senior counsel is unable to make out a case that order of the Additional Commissioner is an order passed under section 44 (1) (a) to (g) or under section 44(2)(i) to (iii). In absence thereto, if we read section 44(3) of the code it would be clear that the order passed in review varying or reversing any order shall be appealable in like manner as the original order. In the present case, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was in exercise of the power under section 50 of the Code, therefore, the order under review cannot be said to be an original order in appeal, but it is an order passed in revision to which section 44(3) of the Code would not attract, therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is hereby repelled. In such circumstances, it is to be held that the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the appeal preferred against the order passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner and to its review because the appeal is not tenable against the said order. The review against the said order has also rightly been rejected because no error apparent on the face of record was found. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in passing the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 dismissing the appeal and review preferred by the petitioner. 13. Now reverting to the issue of the present case it is seen from the record that the petitioner himself applied for change of his caste. He submitted various documents before the Sub-Divisional Officer to support his claim. Those documents have been referred by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order in second paragraph from sub-paras (1) to (11) and after considering those documents, as the party (petitioner) himself admitted that there was clerical mistake in the revenue record and he himself applied for such correction of his record of right, regarding change of his caste which has rightly directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer was at fault while passing the said order. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer was at fault while passing the said order. It is very surprising that the Collector of District Dhar received an anonimous complaint after about two and a half years of such correction directed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereupon he called the report from the Tahsildar vide letter dated 25th January, 2007, which was received on 3rd February, 2007. The notice to show was issued to the petitioner on 13.2.2007, but the order exercising suo motu power of revision was passed on 2.6.2010, although a time limit as prescribed for passing such an order in 180 days in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), and in case of State, it may be one year, but it cannot be, for any reason whatsoever, more than the time from the date of the knowledge of the order, however, it cannot be said that the Collector was not having knowledge of the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, even after having knowledge, the power of suo motu revision exercised after more than three years and five months by the Collector, and no explanation of delay is available on record. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Collector exercising suo motu power of revision is in excess of jurisdiction and illegal, which has rightly been set aside by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 29.3.2012 Annexure P-3. In my considered opinion, this is the case wherein the petitioner himself cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate his stand for his own benefit. In addition the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 is also not under challenge being prohibited transaction, more so, it is executed by him, by his own, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for remand of the case as made by the petitioner is also devoid of any merit, hence rejected. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition filed by petitioner is bereft of any merit, hence dismissed. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.