Holding that a suo motu revision cannot be used to undo orders the State never appealed, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the State’s challenge and upheld the restoration of a Jhabua family’s names in the records of land the State says belongs to a temple.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with a 2011 order of the Board of Revenue that restored the names of a family of cultivators in the revenue records of agricultural land in Jhabua district, finding that the State had let earlier orders in the family’s favour go unchallenged and then reversed them indirectly through a suo motu revision [State of M.P. v. Bhera and Others].
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt dismissed the State’s writ petition, finding no illegality in the Board of Revenue’s order.
The case
The dispute concerned 6.78 hectares recorded under Khata No. 602 in village Sarangi, Tehsil Petlawad, District Jhabua. The State’s case was that the land belonged to the deity of Shri Laxmi Narayan Temple, with the Collector as its manager. The respondents, Bhera, Mangilal and Dhannibai, are heirs of Chunnilal, who had been shown in the records as the cultivator since 1959-60.
In 2003, the Naib Tehsildar ordered the family’s names deleted under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code. On December 30, 2003, the Additional Collector set that order aside, and on January 9, 2004, the Sub-Divisional Officer restored the family’s names. The State did not appeal. Instead, on April 7, 2007, the Additional Commissioner took up the matter in suo motu revision and upheld the deletion. On March 17, 2011, the Board of Revenue allowed the family’s revision and set aside the 2007 order. The State challenged that order in 2012.
ALSO READ: Public Officer Exercising Quasi-Judicial Functions Deemed to ‘Judge’: Patna High Court
The State’s argument
The State argued that the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction by in effect treating the respondents as owners, since revenue courts cannot decide title. It contended that the deity was the recorded Bhumiswami, and that long possession against a deity, which is treated in law as a person under disability, cannot ripen into ownership.
Orders ‘indirectly reversed’
The High Court found that the State had chosen not to challenge the 2003-04 orders in the ordinary course:
“It also transpires that the earlier order passed by the learned Collector as well as SDO in appeal as well as in revision in year 2003-04 were never challenged by way of preferring any appeal and straight way by suo moto revision in year 2007 those orders were indirectly reversed by the authority.”
It agreed with the Board of Revenue that such a revision was not maintainable:
“The Revenue Board has considered the title of the parties after considering the material available on record and has come to the conclusion that the order passed by way of suo moto inquiry in absence of filing any appeal or revision by challenging the impugned order passed by appellate Authority is not maintainable in eye of law more particularly under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code.”
Two separate khatas
The Court also noted that the records showed two different accounts, Khata Nos. 105/1 and 105/2, with the State’s claim apparently linked to the first and the family’s land to the second:
“Moreover from the record it transpires that there are two different khata Nos 105/1 and 105/2. Petitioner is probably connected with khata no. 105/1 and the respondent is connected with the land mentioned in khata no. 105/2 and therefore, on that count also, the order passed by Additional Commissioner in suo moto enquiry is found improper by the Board of Revenue.”
Finding no illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
ALSO READ: Section 528 BNSS Cannot Become A Second Revision: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Why The Suo Motu Revision Judgment Matters
Suo motu revisional powers exist to correct illegality, not to give the State a second chance it chose not to take through appeal. The ruling makes clear that where the State lets orders in a landholder’s favour become final, a revisional authority cannot later reopen them on its own motion years afterwards.
For rural families recorded as cultivators for generations, this gives real protection against belated reversals in the revenue records. The State’s claim to title, which revenue authorities cannot finally decide, is a separate question that this judgment does not settle.
Case Title: State of M.P. v. Bhera and Others [WP No. 5204 of 2012]
Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena for the State; Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia with Advocate Aman Khan for the respondents