ORDER : 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.12.2022 (P-1) passed by Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Revenue Revision Case No. 202110272200021 (14/A-21/2022-23) wherein invoking the suo-motu revisional power under Section 50 read with Section 165(7-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’) as respondent No. 6 Ramvilok had alienated the land by way of registered sale deed without the permission of the Collector in favour of the petitioner along with other respondents 7 to 17 was declared void and the Patta land was returned in favour of the respondent No. 6. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 32/6, area 0.03 hectare situated at village Semli, P.H. No. 11, R.C. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgaj (C.G.) by way of registered sale deed dated 11.03.2014 from Ramvilok(respondent No. 6). Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was duly entered in the revenue record by the competent authority. The aforesaid land was leased out to respondent No. 6 under the scheme of State Government, for issuance of the patta/lease. In Revenue Case No. 1529/A-3/1968/69, after due procedure, respondent No. 5 filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as other purchaser of the land with an allegation that the patta/lease was forged. Upon receipt of such complaint, respondent No. 2/Collector called for a report from the Tehsildar, Balrampur as well as SDO, Balrampur and after receipt of report, a suo-motu revision was taken up and mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner along with other purchaser was cancelled in view of Section 165(7-b) of Land Revenue Code. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, there is no limitation prescribed for taking suo-motu action, however, it is settled law that revenue authority can exercise suo-motu revisional jurisdiction within a reasonable period and the said discretion must be exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge, therefore, the impugned order whereby the mutation order which was passed in favour of the petitioner way back cannot be cancelled in view of Section 50 read with Section 165(7-b) of the Code, only on the ground that the owner has not obtained permission from the Collector. He would further submit that the aforesaid land which was leased out in favour of the seller and the patta was granted prior to amendment of the Land Revenue Code as the sub-section 7-b of Section 165 of Land Revenue Code was inserted vide Act No. 15/1980 and the same is effected from 24.10.1980. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ranveer Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 MP 27 to submit that exercise of suo-motu powers by revenue revisional authority where legislature has not fixed any period of time does not mean that it has unbridled powers to exercise them at any point of time, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period. He referred to Para 38 of the aforesaid judgment which was also referred by this Court in the matter of Wadi Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in Writ Petition No. 2963 of 2004, decided on 01.04.2015, at Para 15 of the said judgment. Para 38 reads thus: “38.............The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under Section 50 of the Code within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. What should be the irreparable loss, it should be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn. We have already mentioned hereinabove certain instances which can be said to be the “irreparable loss.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and to quash the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order, which is well merited and does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 7. Indisputably, in the case at hand, the land which was purchased by the petitioner is a government land and was granted under the lease and the said land was sold without the permission of the Collector on 11.03.2014 in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 6. 7. Indisputably, in the case at hand, the land which was purchased by the petitioner is a government land and was granted under the lease and the said land was sold without the permission of the Collector on 11.03.2014 in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 6. Section 165(7-b) clearly stipulates and prohibits transfer of government land without the permission of Revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector, and if any, sale has been made in contravention of the said provision, the said sale could not be said to be legal and proper. The learned Collector has properly assigned the reasons at the time of sale, the said aspect has to be considered, so the provision of Section 165(7-b) of the Code squarely attracts and until and unless such a permission is granted by the Collector with cogent reasons, the sale is not permissible. The provision has been made to restrict the transfer of land which has been granted on lease by the State Government to a landless person with a pious objective and such person cannot be deprived of the land by any transfer, except as permissible ground and for the sake of brevity the said provision Section 165(7-b) read thus: “165 (7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person [or his or her legal heir] who holds land from the State Government or a person [or his/or her legal heir] who holds land in Bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of Section 158 or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of a revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that a permission mentioned in this sub-section shall not be needed to a Bhumiswami or his/her legal heirs holding Bhumiswami Right Certificate under sub-section (4) or Free-hold Right under the sub-section (5) of Section 158, for the transfer of that land.” 8. In the matter of Mulayam Singh and Another vs. Budhuwa Chamar and Others, 2002 (2) MPHT 140 , even Bhumi-Swami Rights has been vested under Section 158(3) of the Code to a lessee who is holding land in Bhumiswami rights granted to him by the State Government under the said provision and the same is subject to Section 165(7-b) of the Code so the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the patta has been granted way back prior to the amendment therefore, no permission is required, is not tenable. 9. The second ground which was taken that the Collector has no authority to take suo-motu revisional jurisdiction as the same was not exercised within reasonable time, the law is well established that if no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the statute, What should be the reasonable period should be judged with reference to the nature of statute itself and rights and liabilities thereunder. 10. Section 50 of the CG Land Revenue Code provides as under: 50. Revision: (1) The Board [or the Commissioner] [the Commissioner, Land Record] or the Collector or the [District Survey 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 [Commissioner, Land Record] under Section 210. (c) against an order passed in revision by [the Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Record] in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion. (ii) An application for revision against any order can be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded. (ii) An application for revision against any order can be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, the 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 [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the [District Survey Officer] in respect thereof. (ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the [Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Records] under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the [District Survey Officer] in respect thereof. (iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the [Commissioner] [Commissioner, Land Records], Collector or [District Survey 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 the [Commissioner or the] [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the [District Survey 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 [Commissioner, Land Records] 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 [District Survey 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. 11. No period of limitation has been prescribed for taking suo-motu action under Section 50 of the Code. Explanation - For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board. 11. No period of limitation has been prescribed for taking suo-motu action under Section 50 of the Code. It is also not in dispute that in the matter of Ranveer Singh (supra), what should be the reasonable time has been elaborated and it has been held that under Section 50 of the Code, within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. In the instant case only upon receipt of complaint the said fact came to the knowledge of the superior officer i.e. the Collector and immediately thereof he called a report from the Tehsildar and SDO and suo-motu revision was taken up. So there is no delay on the part of the competent authority and the impugned cognizance has been taken within a reasonable time. 12. In the matter of Wadi Kumar (supra) which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Collector has granted permission to the aboriginal tribe to sell his land way back on 15.12.1973, however later on, the Board of Revenue reopened the case by exercising power of suo-motu revisional jurisdiction after a period of thirty years. In such peculiar fact of the case, it was held that the exercise of suo-motu revisional jurisdiction is not proper. So the facts of the present case is distinguishable. 13. Learned State counsel would submit that the present issue directly came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 345/2020 (Smt Saroj Chand vs. Smt. Premawati) decided on 11.05.2020 whereby affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24811/2019 and the order passed on 30.11.2019, Writ Appeal has been dismissed. She would further refer to Para 8 and 9 of the said judgment, which read thus: “8. Thus, the lease is the transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time but it does not include transfer of title. The lease is granted by the State to landless persons so that they can earn their livelihood by cultivating the land. Thus, the lease is the transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time but it does not include transfer of title. The lease is granted by the State to landless persons so that they can earn their livelihood by cultivating the land. Thus, any sale of land granted on lease by the State Government shall be subject to the provisions of Section 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code. As the petitioners have not placed the copy of the lease deed on record, therefore, it is not known that what was the period of lease, and on what terms and conditions, the lease was granted to Khubiram. However, one thing is clear that the law which was prevalent on the date of execution of sale deed by the lessee would apply. In the present case, the lessee is alleged to have sold the land to Totaram on 3.12.1980 i.e. after the insertion of Section 165(7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Thus, the sale of Government land held under lease was not permissible without the consent of the Collector. Thus, the sale of land by Khubiram to Totaram on 3.12.1980 was void and therefore, no rights stood transferred to Totaram as a result of which, sale of land by Totaram in favour of the petitioner would not transfer any title to the petitioner. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2012) 2 MPLJ 363 has held as under: “13. Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code contains a provision in regard to taking permission from the Collector before transfer of the land, which was granted by the State Government on lease. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshabo and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 765 , which has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, has clearly held that non-compliance of the aforesaid section makes the transaction void. The same proposition has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Budhuwa Chamar vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. and Others, 2002 (1) MPLJ 2.” 14. The same proposition has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Budhuwa Chamar vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. and Others, 2002 (1) MPLJ 2.” 14. In view of the judgment passed in the matter of Smt Saroj Chand (supra), the object of grant of lease to a landless persons was that they can earn their livelihood by cultivating the land. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshabo and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 765 , wherein it was held that any transaction made in non-compliance of Section 165(7-b) makes the transaction void. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any case for any interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well merited. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality or irregularity in the said order. 16. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.