Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 394 (MP)

Ram Nidhi Upadhyaya v. State of M. P.

2020-03-06

SUBODH ABHYAKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been considered by this Court in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2010 RN 409 = 2010(3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 FB] and it has been held that power under section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, was not available to the respondent-Collector to review the earlier grant issued in favour of the persons like petitioner, after such a long time that, too, without the sanction of the competent authority. It is contended that several writ petitions have been allowed on these reasons. 2. Learned G.A. appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute such a stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In Writ Petition No. 16056/2014 (Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), while looking to such contentions, this Court has passed an order on 11.3.2015 and has allowed the writ petition in the following manner : "The notices of this writ petition were issued to the respondents on 17.10.2014 and interim protection was granted to the petitioner. Though the matter was posted for hearing on 18.11.2014 and 5.2.2015, no return whatsoever has been filed by the respondents. The law in respect of the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). When such a power was not available with the respondent-Collector, it was not necessary to pass the impugned order dated 12.7.2010. 2 As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.7.2010 and 3.2.2014 are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. The same analogy is applicable in the present case and, therefore, this writ petition is also to be allowed. 5. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 27.8.2012 and 24.6.2009 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands finally disposed of.