Devi Prasad vs State of MP and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 2/2/2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Collector, Sheopur, District Sheopur.

By the aforesaid order, the authority has cancelled the lease [''''Patta''''] granted in favour of the petitioner. The authority had taken the matter in suo motu revision. It is mentioned by the authority in the order that there was no record available in regard to entitlement of the petitioner to receive lease [''''Patta'''']. It is further mentioned by the authority that the endorsements in the documents of revenue record were forged. The authority has assigned proper reasons in this regard. The authority further observed that the petitioner was not eligible to receive lease ["Patta"] because there are allegations of fraud and that has been substantiated by cogent finding. In my opinion, it would not be proper to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., and contended that suo motu power could not be exercised beyond a period of 180 days.

In my opinion, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case because the findings recorded by the authority are that the petitioner obtained lease [''''Patta''''] by playing fraud. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything. Hence, in my opinion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.