ORDER : 1. All the writ petitions are heard and decided together by this common order as the similar question is involved in these petitions, as to whether the Collector is justified in registering suo-moto revision in the year 2022 with regard to transaction of the year 2011. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that petitioners came in possession of the subject land pursuant to purchase of land by them from the private respondents through registered sale deed. Collector registered a suo moto revision in exercise of power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Petitioners caused their appearance in the suo motu revision proceeding, submitted an application raising objections with regard to maintainability of the revision mentioning therein that the subject land of suo moto revision was registered in the name of private persons in the revenue records to which they purchased through registered sale-deed in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. After purchase of the lands, lands were mutated in their name and thereafter, the petitioners have sold the land to Jindal Steel & Power Limited. In view of the provision under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, Collector is not having jurisdiction to inquire into the veracity of the registered sale deed. In the inquiry proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the inquiry report was submitted on 14.02.2019 through which all the factual aspect was brought to the notice of the Collector and therefore, if any action ought to have been taken on report, action could have been taken only within six months. After long lapse of time exercise of power of suo-moto revision as provided under Section 50 can not be invoked. It is also contention that investigation is also being done by Anti Corruption Bureau in Case No. 50 of 2016 registered on 04.06.2016 and therefore, the parallel proceeding is also not permissible. Collector vide impugned order dated 24.04.2023 decided the objections raised by petitioners rejecting the same which made petitioners to file these petitions. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that private respondent No.4 sold the land subject matter of revisions, to petitioners through registered sale deed and based upon which name of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. After mutation of their names in the revenue records, petitioners have sold the land to respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that private respondent No.4 sold the land subject matter of revisions, to petitioners through registered sale deed and based upon which name of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. After mutation of their names in the revenue records, petitioners have sold the land to respondent No.5. The transaction of the purchase of land is of the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 and immediately thereafter name was also mutated in the revenue records, therefore after lapse of about 8-10 years, suo-moto revision proceedings is not permissible. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that suo-motu revision can be registered within a period of six months. Collector has not considered the specific plea taken in the objection with respect to provisions under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act which only provides jurisdiction to cancel the registered sale deed executed in favor of any party. From the date of execution of sale deed, challenge to the registered sale deed is also barred by limitation. Order of the Collector rejecting objection with regard to maintainability of the suo-moto revision registered against petitioners is in contravention of the established principles of law. Jurisdiction of suo-moto revision after lapse of 8 to 10 years is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Wadi Kumar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, in Writ Petition No. 2963 of 2004, decided on 01.04.2015 and decision in the case of Mangal V. Board of Revenue & Ors., in WP No. 5060 of 2004 decided on 24.06.2023. 4. Learned counsel for respondents/State opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. They have deliberately concealed the material facts and made representation in order to mislead this court. The petitioners are having alternate efficacious and statutory remedy against the order Annexure P-1. The Collector after receiving information and getting knowledge, registered suo motu revision within short time. Enquiry report dated 14.02.2019 was forwarded to Collector through order sheet dated 26.04.2022 and immediately thereafter in the month of June, 2022 Collector initiated the proceedings. The decision relied upon by petitioners in case of Wadi Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Enquiry report dated 14.02.2019 was forwarded to Collector through order sheet dated 26.04.2022 and immediately thereafter in the month of June, 2022 Collector initiated the proceedings. The decision relied upon by petitioners in case of Wadi Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Impugned order passed by the Collector in the facts of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The undisputed facts of the case are that, based on the inquiry report submitted by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Collector registered suo-moto revision in exercise of power conferred under Section 50 of the Code of 1959. Notices were issued to seller of the land, petitioners and purchaser of the land from petitioners. Petitioners raised objection with regard to maintainability of revision on the ground that suo-motu revisional power is exercised after lapse of long time. Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to have a glance of the provision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 which reads as under:- “50. Revision. Petitioners raised objection with regard to maintainability of revision on the ground that suo-motu revisional power is exercised after lapse of long time. Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to have a glance of the provision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 which reads as under:- “50. Revision. - (1) The Board [or the Commissioner] or the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit : Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained- (a) against an order appealable under this Code; (b) against an order of the Settlement Commissioner under Section 210; (c) against an order passed in revision by the [Commissioner or] the Settlement Commissioner in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion; (ii) no such application shall be entertained unless presented within sixty days to the [Commissioner or] the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or within ninety days to the Board of Revenue from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded; (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)- (i) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub-section (1) no action shall be taken by the [Commissioner or] the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer in respect thereof; (ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the [Commissioner] the Settlement Commissioner under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the Settlement Officer in respect thereof; (iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the [Commissioner], Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Board may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by [Commissioner] the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit; (iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Collector or the Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board.” 7. Perusal of provision under Section 50 would show that power of revision is vested with Board of Revenue or Commissioner or settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the settlement Officer. It does not provide for any limitation and in the provision, word used for exercising the powers of revision is mentioned as “may at any time on its/his motion”. Further any private party can file revision against any order of the sub-ordinate revenue officer before the higher revenue officer as provided therein. For exercising suo moto revisional power, period of limitation is not prescribed. Period of 60 days is for filing application for revision which means for a party filing application. 8. Further any private party can file revision against any order of the sub-ordinate revenue officer before the higher revenue officer as provided therein. For exercising suo moto revisional power, period of limitation is not prescribed. Period of 60 days is for filing application for revision which means for a party filing application. 8. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with respect to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, the Collector in order impugned has observed that name of private persons are entered in revenue records by forgery. The land recorded in the revenue records as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle, Pahad, Chattan” was manipulated as private ownership land. After manipulating the revenue records some lands were sold to petitioners. Collector further observed that he is not inquiring with regard to registered sale deed but is only conducting inquiry with respect to manipulation of revenue entries in records and the inquiry which is to be conducted by the Collector will not affect the investigation of Anti Corruption Bureau. 9. In view of the aforementioned observation made by the Collector in the opinion of this Court submission of learned counsel for petitioner that Collector can not look into the correctness/ veracity of the registered sale deed is not acceptable. The Collector being higher revenue officer in the district is having jurisdiction to inquire into the correctness of entries of the revenue records. 10. The other ground raised by learned counsel for petitioners that the Collector has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 suo-motu after lapse of long time is concerned, the respondents-State in their reply have specifically pleaded that the inquiry report prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.02.2019 was brought to the notice of the Collector by order-sheet dated 26.04.2022 and the Collector has registered the case on 27.06.2022. In general parlance, period of limitation to exercise power of suo-moto revision is to be counted from the date of knowledge of wrong committed. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is not appearing that Collector has exercised the jurisdiction after lapse of long time from the date of knowledge. 11. Apart from the above, the provision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 provides for no limitation it mentions “may at any time on its motion”. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is not appearing that Collector has exercised the jurisdiction after lapse of long time from the date of knowledge. 11. Apart from the above, the provision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 provides for no limitation it mentions “may at any time on its motion”. Even if no specific time limitation is provided under Section 50 then also suo-moto powers has to be exercised within the reasonable time and is to be determined considering the facts of each case. 12. In case of Smt. Ushadevi Vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1990 MP 268 , Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the provisions under Section 42 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 has observed that the reasonable time for exercise of powers must be determined with reference to facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of order, which is being revised. 13. In case of Mulayam Singh & Ors. Vs. Budhuwa Chamar & Ors, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 480 , Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has considered “the reasonable time” for exercising the power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and observed thus :- “6. So far as the question of invoking suo motu power in revision by the Additional Collector under Section 50 of the Code is concerned, in our opinion, this power has rightly been exercised by the Additional Collector. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Lal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., ( 1994 MPLJ 378 ) has held in para 10 that :-- "It has been, in the last, argued for the petitioners that though no time limit has been prescribed for exercising suo motu powers of revision, yet they should be exercised within a reasonable time. For the said preposition in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghu Natha (AIR 1969 SC at page 1297), has been cited for the petitioners. In this regard, it has to be seen that it is a cardinal principle of law of limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation starts running from the date of acquiring the knowledge of the relevant fact giving rise to the cause of action. In the present case, the relevant lands were recorded in the name of a deity. In this regard, it has to be seen that it is a cardinal principle of law of limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation starts running from the date of acquiring the knowledge of the relevant fact giving rise to the cause of action. In the present case, the relevant lands were recorded in the name of a deity. The Collector started proceedings as soon as the fact of alleged mutation in the names of the petitioners were brought to his notice. Taking action "within a reasonable time" is a relative term. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, action was taken within a reasonable time." What would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each particular case. In the present case as soon as this fact was brought into his notice, the Additional Collector has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code to set aside the mutation based on a transaction contrary to the provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction was exercised beyond reasonable time…...” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1297 while considering the power of Commissioner to revise order when no limitation period is prescribed has observed as under :- “11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under s. 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.” 15. In the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that where no period of limitation is provided for exercising the powers of suo-motu revision, the power is to be exercised within the reasonable time and further the reasonable time must be determined from the facts of each case and nature of order which is being revised. From the above, it is clear that no strait jacket formula can be applied for determining the reasonable time but it has to be considered based on the facts of each case and nature of order. 16. In the case at hand, there is allegation of manipulation and forgery committed by some one in revenue records which was brought to the knowledge of Collector after completion of inquiry. The land earlier recorded as Chote Jhad ka jungle, Pahad in revenue record, was manipulated and shown in revenue record as private ownership land. SDO(R) conducted inquiry and submitted report before Collector. Inquiry report is placed before Collector on 26.04.2022 and within short time, i.e. on 27.06.2022 revision was registered. The person whose name was entered in revenue record sold the land to petitioners and they also sold the land to the respondent No.5. 17. Sub-Divisional Officer completed inquiry on 14.02.2019 as reflecting from Annexure P-3 but the contention of learned counsel for respondents based on the proceeding drawn in Annexure R-1 is that report before the Collector along with order sheet was submitted only on 26.04.2022. Even if considering the date of inquiry report as 14.02.2019 and the date of registration of suo-motu revision by the Collector on 27.06.2022. In the facts of the case and the nature of the order/proceedings which is sought to be revised which is forging of revenue records, land recorded as Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle, Pahad and Chattan was changed in the name of private respondent, in the opinion of this Court it can not be said that the power of revision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 exercised by the Collector is beyond reasonable time. Forging government record is serious illegal act and therefore, it cannot be equated with the revision of any order passed by any authority. 18. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners are on different facts as there the question involved is not with regard to forging of revenue records. 19. For the aforementioned discussions I do not find any error, illegality or infirmity in the order Annexure P-1 rejecting the objection of the petitioners with regard to maintainability of suo moto revision. Accordingly, all the writ petitions being sans merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.