ORDER : – In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19-1-2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3-Additional Collector on a note-sheet and ratified by respondent No. 2/Collector, whereby lands belonging to the petitioners falling in Survey No. 452/1/Min-1 admeasuring 1.881 hectares (new number 452/3) and Survey No. 452/1/Min-2 admeasuring 0.805 hectare (new number 452/1) situate at Dongapur, Putlighar, Patwari Halka No. 78, Tahsil and District Gwalior have been directed to be recorded in the revenue records as Government Land. The revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 4-7-2017 (Annexure P/1) for want of jurisdiction against administrative proceedings, which is also subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are partners having created a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Indra Creators/respondent No. 4. The Firm is registered as a Colonizer under the provisions of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners purchased land bearing Survey No. 452/1/Min-1 admeasuring 1.881 hectares situate at Dongarpur, Patwari Halka No. 78, RI Circle 5, Morar, Block Morar, Tahsil and District Gwalior vide registered sale deed dated 31-7-2012 (Annexure P/5) from one Shri Rambaran Singh Gurjar for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore). Thereafter, they purchased another piece of land located at Survey No. 452/1/Min-2, admeasuring 0.805 hectare located at Dongarpur, Patwar Halka No. 78, Tahsil and District Gwalior vide registered sale deed dated 20-3-2013 (Annexure P/6) from one Sunil Gandhi for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore). It is relevant to mention here that the Nazool department has issued No Objection Certificates in favour of Rambaran Singh and Sunil Gandhi, who are predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, with respect to the lands in question on 23-5-2012 (Annexure P/7) and 28-8-2010 (Annexure P/8) respectively. After purchase of the said lands, name of petitioners was recorded in the revenue records as Bhumiswami in the year 2012-2013, as is reflected in corresponding Khasra (Annexure P/9) and Bhuadhikar and Rin Pustika (Annexure P/10) was also issued in favour of the petitioners. After purchase of the said lands, name of petitioners was recorded in the revenue records as Bhumiswami in the year 2012-2013, as is reflected in corresponding Khasra (Annexure P/9) and Bhuadhikar and Rin Pustika (Annexure P/10) was also issued in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, demarcation of the land was done by the Revenue Department vide order dated 6-2-2013 and Survey No. 452/1/min-1 admeasuring 1.881 hectares and Survey No. 452/1/min-2 admeasuring 0.805 hectare have been renumbered as Survey Nos. 452/3 and 452/1 respectively. Then, vide order dated 14-8-2013 (Annexure P/12), permission was granted by Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior for development of residential colony on the land in question. On 17-9-2013, diversion order (Annexure P/13) in respect of the land in question was passed in favour of the petitioner No. 4/Firm. The petitioners paid the municipal taxes on 10-12-2013 and 20-3-2015 of Rs. 2,70,918/- and Rs. 1,23,332/- respectively vide receipts (Annexure P/14). For the purpose of colonization, a part of land was mortgaged by the petitioners to the Municipal Corporation vide registered mortgaged deed dated 24-3-2014 (Annexure P/15). The layout plan of the colony was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and the sanction letter/certificate dated 25-3-2014 along with corresponding receipt of Municipal Corporation amounting to Rs. 34,32,260/- has been brought on record as Annexure P/16. Thereafter, the colony was developed on the land in question in the name of “Shrinkhla Enclave” and the Municipal Corporation, after finding that the development of colony was as per norms executed registered deed of redemption of mortgage (Annexure P/17) in favour of the petitioners on 9-3-2016. Petitioners further paid taxes to the Municipal Corporation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,816/- vide receipt dated 21-2-2016 (Annexure P/18). After development of the colony, petitioners have sold plots to the public at large. Some of the plot holders, after obtaining building permission from the Municipal Corporation, have also started construction of houses. However, on 19-1-2017 the impugned order (Annexure P/2) has been passed declaring the lands in question to be Government lands. 1,02,816/- vide receipt dated 21-2-2016 (Annexure P/18). After development of the colony, petitioners have sold plots to the public at large. Some of the plot holders, after obtaining building permission from the Municipal Corporation, have also started construction of houses. However, on 19-1-2017 the impugned order (Annexure P/2) has been passed declaring the lands in question to be Government lands. It is mentioned in the impugned order that Khasras of Village Dongarpur were scrutinized with respect to Khatauni of Samvat 2007 (Calendar year 1950) and it was found that there had been manipulation in the original record and new entries are found to have been made in as many as 23 Survey Numbers including the survey numbers belonging to the petitioners in different ink, due to which the same has been recorded as private land. It is also mentioned therein that despite such concoction in the said 23 survey numbers, 8 still continue to be recorded as Government Lands. It is further mentioned therein that by committing such interpolation, valuable Government land has been recorded as Private Land. Accordingly, Tahildar Gwalior has been directed by the Collector to register the same as Government land, Nazool Officer Morar has been directed not to issue No Objection in respect of the same, Joint Director, Town and Country Planning has been directed to consider the same as Government land while sanctioning any layout, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has been directed not to issue building/development permission on the said land, the diversion orders, Nazool NOC and development permissions granted earlier in respect of the said land have been revoked. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners approached the Board of Revenue, but their revision has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction against administrative proceedings. 3. The impugned order (Annexure P/2) has been assailed by the petitioners inter alia on the following grounds : – (a) The petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the lands in question, having purchased the same by registered sale deeds dated 31-7-2012 and 20-3-2013 after paying hefty consideration amount of about 2 crores for development of a residential colony. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners were duly issued No Objection Certificates by the Nazool Department of the State vide orders dated 23-5-2012 and 28-8-2010 (Annexures P/7 and P/8) respectively, meaning thereby that the land in question was never a Government land. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners were duly issued No Objection Certificates by the Nazool Department of the State vide orders dated 23-5-2012 and 28-8-2010 (Annexures P/7 and P/8) respectively, meaning thereby that the land in question was never a Government land. Thereafter, they have been granted all the requisite permissions for development of colony by the respondents. Now, the impugned order directing to register the land in question as Government land, in effect, is trying to set at naught the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by an executive fiat, which concept is alien to law. For this, reliance has been placed on decision of he Apex Court in the case of Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and others, (2010) 8 SCC 383 , wherein it has been held as under : – “48. Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of the rule of law. Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise.” Moreover, the impugned order has been passed in hot haste without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which speaks volumes about the conduct of the respondents. (b) The impugned order (Annexure P/2) dated 19-1-2017 passed by respondent No. 3-Additional Collector to undo the revenue entries of the year 2012 and 2013 amounts to suo motu revision, but the same is hopelessly barred by limitation which is 180 days from the date of knowledge, as has been laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Ranveer Singh and others vs. State of M. P., 2010(5) MPHT 137 (F.B.). In this regard, it is submitted that date of knowledge of State ought to be deemed from 2010 and 2012 when No Objection permission was granted by the Nazool department to predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, as the same would be presumed to have been granted after due inquiry and scrutiny of the corresponding revenue records. In this regard, it is submitted that date of knowledge of State ought to be deemed from 2010 and 2012 when No Objection permission was granted by the Nazool department to predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, as the same would be presumed to have been granted after due inquiry and scrutiny of the corresponding revenue records. The State Authorities cannot be allowed to backtrack after issuing all the permissions, as it would amount to chopping the hands of not only the petitioners, but also, of subsequent purchasers, who after taking huge loan from banks, relying upon the permissions granted by the State Authorities, have purchased plots and are in process of raising construction. Such an action of the mighty executive to put on hold the fate of hundreds of plot-holders, cannot be allowed to stand. To buttress the contention, reliance has been placed on decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. R. Ejaz vs. T. N. Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., (2002) 3 SCC 137 , wherein it has been held as under: – “8. In our view, if such actions by the mighty or powerful are condoned in a democratic country, nobody would be safe nor the citizens can protect their properties. Law frowns upon such conduct. The Court accords legitimacy and legality only to possession taken in due course of law. If such actions are condoned, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or the legal rights would be given go bye either by the authority or by rich and influential persons or by musclemen. Law of jungle will prevail and ‘might would be right’ instead of ‘right being might’. This Court in State of U. P. and others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and others, (1989) 2 SCC 505 dealt with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and observed that a lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited. The Court also held that there is no question of Government withdrawing or appropriating to it an extra judicial right of re-entry and the possession of the property can be resumed by the Government only in a manner known to or recognized by law.” (c) The respondent No. 3/Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to order for correction of revenue entries, as such powers lie with the Tahsildar only under section 115 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and that too after due notice. In the instant case no notice has ever been issued to the petitioners. Further, limitation for correction of entries at the instance of an aggrieved person is 1 year under section 116 of the Code. As such, the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit in the nature of “short reply” has been filed by the State. It is stated therein that information was received from the OIC record room with respect to fraudulent entries being made in the revenue records with the help of revenue authorities or Bhumafia, therefore, it was rightly thought to enquire into the matter and on the basis of apprehension and with an intention and object to stop illegal colonization and to stop Bhumafia, direction was given by the learned Collector to all the Tahsildar to enquire into the matter, in respect whereof, a letter was written by the Collector, Gwalior on 6-5-2016 and matter was taken up for investigation of 23 survey numbers, total area 192 bigha and 1 biswa. During investigation, it was found that aforesaid survey numbers were recorded as Government land in Samvat 2007. Thereafter, notices were issued to the concerning that without there being any order of any of the competent Authority, there had been manipulation and interpolation of records. Considering the enquiry report, it was directed by the Collector that all subsequent proceedings and the orders which have been passed, considering the manipulated record, are non est and void ab initio and to correct the corresponding entries. Considering the enquiry report, it was directed by the Collector that all subsequent proceedings and the orders which have been passed, considering the manipulated record, are non est and void ab initio and to correct the corresponding entries. It is further submitted that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) is of no avail to the petitioners in view of settled position of law that fraud vitiates everything and no limitation is applicable in case of fraud. It is further stated therein that as soon as the fact regarding illegality being committed and fraud being played came to the knowledge of the respondent Authorities, matter was investigated and in the investigation fact regarding fraud being played was clearly visible, therefore, order has been passed holding that with the connivance of officers records have been manipulated. It is further stated in the reply that the land is valuable land which was recorded in the name of Government in Samvat 2007 and without there being any orders from the competent Authority regarding changing the name in the revenue records, name of private persons have been recorded. It is also pleaded therein that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of filing appeal under section 44 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the impugned order before the Commissioner. Some of the persons have already preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. It is further contended that detailed enquiry was conducted with respect to Survey No. 452/min-2 admeasuring area 0.805 hectare situated at Village Dongarpur, Tahsil and District Gwalior. In the enquiry report, the said survey number finds place at S.No. 19 and detail particulars from very initial stage i.e. from Samvat 2007 (Calendar year 1950) were taken into consideration. In the records of Samvat 2007, 2008 and 2009, no name was recorded in Col.5 and all of a sudden, without the order of any competent Authority, the name of private individuals have been entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the matter was taken up into investigation and after completion of enquiry and passing of order dated 19-7-2017 by Additional Collector, records have been corrected and the name of State Government has been recorded in the revenue records. Therefore, the matter was taken up into investigation and after completion of enquiry and passing of order dated 19-7-2017 by Additional Collector, records have been corrected and the name of State Government has been recorded in the revenue records. Enquiry has also been directed to find out the persons responsible for manipulating the records and for taking suitable action against them. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Petitioners have tendered rejoinder denying the contentions made in the above said counter-affidavit. Petitioners have categorically refuted that notices were ever issued or served upon them. The said notices are also not annexed to the reply. With regard to availability of alternative remedy under section 44 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, it is submitted that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction and only with an intent to harass the petitioners for extraneous reasons. Therefore, availing such alternative remedy would have been a totally futile exercise, much like Caeser’s appeal to Caeser’s wife. For this, reliance has been placed on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1985 SC 1147 , wherein it has been held as under : – “More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact in the very decision relied upon by the High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammad Nooh it is observed that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It should be made specifically clear that where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the in stance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Art. 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits.” It is also pointed out that to compare the alleged correction/interpolation, the respondents have not filed copies of relevant Khasras, the enquiry report is, therefore, dubious and has been prepared in an arbitrary manner. 6. Thereafter, the respondents have sought to adopt the return filed in W. P. Nos. 1672/2017, 4415/2017 and 4589/2017 by moving I. A. No. 890/19, which was permitted vide order dated 19-3-2019. The said return inter alia details that a Five Member Committee was constituted to inquire into the genuineness and veracity of entries in the original record of Samvat-2007 of various pieces of lands including the lands in question. The Committee found various manipulations in the original revenue records. A detailed report in that regard is submitted in tabular form on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken. It reveals that fraud has been played with connivance of certain functionaries of the State to cause unlawful entries in the revenue/Nazul records of land which are extremely precious and meant exclusively for public purpose. It is further reiterated that it is a mere case of correction in the entries in revenue records against which there is remedy available to petitioners under the relevant statute and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable 7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, petitioners are colonizers and their Firm “Indra Creators”/petitioner No. 4 is a registered partnership Firm. The lands in question have been purchased by them vide registered sale deeds dated 31-7-2012 and 20-3-2013 from Rambaran Singh Gurjar and Sunil Gandhi, who have been issued NOC from the Nazool Department on 23-5-2012 (Annexure P/7) and 28-8-2010 (Annexure P/8) respectively. Thereafter, the land has been demarcated, permission has been obtained from Town and Country Planning Department, the land has been diversified and colony has been developed after mortgaging some part of the land with the Municipal Corporation, which after completion of the colony as per norms has been redeemed. The petitioners have also paid all the taxes to the Corporation and thereafter sold plots to various subsequent purchasers. The petitioners have also paid all the taxes to the Corporation and thereafter sold plots to various subsequent purchasers. It has also come on record that the subsequent purchasers have taken loans from banks and some of them have also been granted building permission by the Municipal Corporation and they are in the process of raising construction. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order has been passed on 19-1-2017 mentioning that some fraud with regard to interpolation in Khasra entries had come to knowledge of the respondents/Authorities and after enquiry and comparing it with the Khasra/Khatauni of Samvat 2007 (Calendar Year 1950), it was found that the land in question was recorded as Government Land in Samvat 2007 and all of a sudden after Samvat 2009 (Calendar year 1952) the same has been recorded in the name of private individuals in the revenue records, without there being any order to that effect. Here it is to be noted that NOC from the Nazul Department has been granted to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners in the years 2010 and 2012 certifying that the same is not a Government Land. For ready reference, the No Objection Certificates dated 23-5-2012 (Annexure P/7) and 28-8-2010 (Annexure P/8) are reproduced infra : Thus, a bare perusal of the above Nazul NOCs reveals that the same have been issued after due verification with Khasra entries of Samvat 2007 and finding that the land in question is not recorded in the name of Government. Now after an elapse of about 7 years from 2010, the State Authorities have come up with a case that in Samvat 2007 (Calendar Year 1950) the land in question was recorded as Government land and that this fact had come to the knowledge of Collector in 2016 and then he wrote a letter for investigation in that behalf on 6-5-2016. However, no such letter has been brought on record by the respondents to reflect their date of knowledge. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) has held that a period of 180 days from the date of detection of illegality, impropriety and/or irregularity of the order/proceedings committed by Revenue Authority subordinate to Revisional Authority would be a reasonable period for exercise of suo motu powers despite involvement of Government land or public interest in cases involving irreparable loss. It is also clarified therein that although “irreparable loss” cannot be defined and no exhaustive list thereof can be given, yet dispossession, when possession was having basis of some right accrued under some statute or law or some order of any officer or under a statute, is irreparable loss. In the case in hand, the petitioners and the subsequent purchasers have acquired ownership and possession of the lands in question by way of registered sale deeds under a statute and, therefore, their dispossession obviously comes within the purview of “irreparable loss”. It has further been held therein as under : – “52. …. I may further hasten to add that this would be upper-ceiling of limitation for exercise of such powers and the person suffering an irreparable loss would be within his rights to show that such power ought to have been exercised in lesser period in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, causing irreparable loss prior to such exercise.” As indicated above, the respondents have not been able to bring on record any conclusive proof to demonstrate their date of knowledge. Fraud/manipulation, if any, ought to have come to the knowledge of respondents at the time of granting Nazool NOCs in the years 2010 and 2012 which clearly reflect that Khasras of Samvat 2007 were scrutinized at that time and while granting other permissions for development of colony from time to time. As such, the impugned order is certainly beyond limitation, besides the fact that there is no formal order invoking suo motu power of revision in form of show cause notice or final order passed u/S. 50 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 [Umrao Singh vs. Lal Singh, 2016(2) RN 251 , referred to]. It is also noteworthy that the enquiry report annexed to the return based whereupon the impugned order has been passed is not supported by copies of current Khasras and those of Samvat 2007. The impugned order is also an exception to the rule of audi alteram partem, as no notice or opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. 10. Further, undoubtedly by the impugned order, respondent/State has attempted to gain title of the land in question on the basis of so called entry in Khasra/Khatauni records of Samvat 2007. 10. Further, undoubtedly by the impugned order, respondent/State has attempted to gain title of the land in question on the basis of so called entry in Khasra/Khatauni records of Samvat 2007. However, it is well settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue Authorities cannot decide a question of title [Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. vs. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 12 , referred to] . In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan vs. Financal Commr., (2007) 6 SCC 186 has held as under : – “It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only ‘fiscal purpose’ i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh and ors., AIR 1994 SC 1653 )” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Besides, the objection of the respondents as to availability of alternative remedy under section 44 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 does not weigh with this Court, in view of the fact that not only the order impugned is totally without jurisdiction, but also is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of M. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited vs. Jahan Khan, ILR (2007) M. P. 1282 (SC) held as under : – “The Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy, a Writ Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review. In at least three contingencies, namely (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of the fundamental rights, (ii) where there is failure of principle of natural justice or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the views of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Even otherwise, provisions of section 115 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code”) that deal with correction of wrong entries by Tahsildar, cannot be resorted to without providing opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party. For ready reference, section 115 (pre-amended) of the Code is quoted thus : – “115. Correction of wrong entry in khasra and any other land records by superior officers. – If any Tahsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the land records prepared under section 114 by an officer sub-ordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made therein in red ink after making such enquiry from the person concerned as he may deem fit after due written notice” Thus, it is clear that power under the above section can be exercised by Tahsildar only for correction of wrong/incorrect entry in the land records prepared by his subordinate officer after making enquiry after due written notice. It is well settled that change in Khasra entries cannot be made without affording opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. The Apex Court in the case of Mahant Ram Khilawan Das vs. State of M. P., 2008 RN 162, while considering the provisions of section 115 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, has held that adverse inference can be drawn for correction of revenue records without notice to the opposite party. In the case of State of M. P. vs. Shree Ranchor Teekam Mandir, 2013(2) M.P.L.J. 642 , the name of Collector was endorsed as Vyavasthapak of the temple in question. The said action of the State Government was found to be de hors section 115 of the Code and it was held that without holding an enquiry and giving notice to the person interested, there cannot be any change in the revenue record. That apart, by directing the Tahsildar to record the land in question as Government land, the Collector has, in effect, usurped the jurisdiction vested in Tahsildar under section 115 of the Code because then the Tahsildar is left with no other option but to carry out such administrative orders and the protection to the opposite party, as envisaged in the above section in the nature of giving audience to him, is clearly bypassed. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to point out that under which provision of the Code such a direction has been issued by the Collector. 13. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners that the colony has been developed after taking loan from Bank and thereafter several plot holders/subsequent purchasers have also taken loans from different banks. Such loans have been granted by the Banks after conducting detailed search/scrutiny of the revenue records and relying upon the permissions granted by the State Agencies. Now, by way of impugned order, respondents have revoked all the permissions granted earlier by a stroke of pen, on the basis of alleged Khasra/Khatauni entries of about 70 years back (Samvat 2007), putting at stake not only the fate of petitioners but also that of more than hundred plot holders/subsequent purchasers. If such a course is permitted to prevail, then no sanctity would ever be attachable to the permission/approvals granted by the State Government, based whereupon people invest their lifetime savings and hard-earned money for building a home, as they would be revisable/revokable after any duration of time. As such, in the opinion of this Court, such an action of the respondents is nothing more than colourable exercise of power and wholly without jurisdiction. 14. On 25-10-2017, this Court had granted interim relief in the nature of status quo. However, certain documents have been brought on record by way of I. A. No. 1593/19 to demonstrate the fact that the order (Annexure P/2) has been implemented and the land of the petitioners falling in Survey No. 452/1 and 452/3 has been recorded as Government land. 14-A. In the result, the impugned order dated 19-1-17 (Annexure P/2) cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. The same, so far as it relates to land in question of the petitioners falling in Survey Nos. 452/1 and 452/3, is hereby quashed. As an obvious consequence, the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P/1) is also set aside. Any alteration in revenue records done in pursuance of order (Annexure P/2) with respect to the land of the petitioners in the aforesaid survey numbers be recalled. However, the respondents/State shall be at liberty to ventilate its grievances, if any, in accordance with law, if so advised. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.