.8 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinale Bench: - Hon'ble Shri S.R. NAYAK, CJ PETITiONER RESPONDEiMTS WRIT PETITION N0. 6784 OF 2005 Onkar Prasad, S/o Ram Prasad, Aged about 55 years, R/o Vil!. Mohla, Tah. Mohia, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Versus 1. Reva Ram, S/o Dhani Ram R/o Kishan Puri, P.0. Parsauda, Tah. Charama, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) 2. Upper Collector, Rajnandgaon. (C.G.) 3. Boarci of Revenue, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisionat Officer, Dong^rgarh, Distt, Rajnandgaon Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, iearned counsel forthe petitioner. (Passed on 29m November 2005) This writ petjtion is directed against the order dated 29/07/2003 passed by the Additionaf Coliector,Rajnandg3on in Review Case No.122-A-23(b)/1998-99 as affirmed by the Board of Revenue, Rajpur vide its order dated 12/09/2005 in Revision Case N0.425/A- 23(b)/2002-03. (2) The facts of the case in brief are as folfows: The disputed land situated at vjilage Salhejaihai, Patwari Halka No.33, Tahsii Moh!a was registered sn favour of Dhani Ram, tether of respondent No.1 Reva Ram. The concerned Patwari had submitted a report to the ^. ^'<3 -»2L- 'A. SDO that fhe petitioner is in possession of the disputed land and on this the SDO registered Revenue Cas©No.430/A-23(b)/87-88 and vide order dated 14/12/1988 directed that the tand be reverted to Dhani Ram. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitjoner herein preferred an appeal the Addi. Coliector, Rajnandgaon and vide order dated 28/10/1996 the Add!. Coliector, Rajnandgaon remitted the case to the SDO to conduct enqulry on two points namely whether the vendor has received the consideration or not and how much Sand has been purchased by the vendor. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh after hearing both the parties vide order dated 19/04/1999 rejected the appfjcation of rospondent No.1. Against th@ order passed by th@ Sub Divisiona! Officer, Reva Ram/respondent No.1 preferred revision before the Addi. Coliector, Rajnandgaon who by his order dated 29/07/2003 set aside the order of the Sub Diyjs'ional Officer by aliowlng the revision. Against that order, the petitioner pr@ferred a revlsion to the Board of Revenue and the same has been dismis^ed by the Board of Revenue by ite order dated 12/09/2005. (3) The oniy contention raised before me by the learned counsej for the petitioner is that the permission accorded by the Collector. Rajnandgaon as for as back in the year 1975 to purchase the subject iand from Dhani Ram, father of the first respondent, could not have been cancelied suo-motu after a iapse of 25 years. The facts laid before the Court wouid prima-facie create a ^Qrious doubt whother during the (ife of Dhani Ram, the subject properiy was actualty soid to the petrtfoner under a registered document. That js exactiy the cjrcumstance which weighed with the Board of Revenue to pass the impugned order dated 12-9-2005 directing the District Collector, Rajnandgaon to re-examine the materials on record and fsnd-out whether the subject land was actuaily 30 -T!>' ©lienatedby Dhani Ram during his life time in favour of the petitioner and tho oonsideration was actually paid to deceased Dhani Ram. The issue brought before the Court arises out of a sociai welfare legislation intended to updft the tribais in the State. Therefore, mere gap of time in injtiating suo-motu proceedings by the statutory authorities could not be a valsd ground for this Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india to upset the discretion exercised by the Board of Revenue to do Justice to the parties concemed. Be th^t a§jt may, since the matter has been remitted to the Distriot Collector to re-examine the merits of the matter, it ss open for tho potitioner to put-fourth his caso boforo tho District Coilootor for consideration. Above aif, the resofution ofthe dispute between the parties requires ascertainment of relevant facts. Lobking from that angte afso, it is not a fit where thjs Court should undertaRe the resolution of disputed facts. In the result, 1 dismiss the Writ Petition. However, it is made ctear that this Court should not be understood to have expressed any oplnion on contentious issues brought before the Court and it i^ for th©District Collector to inquire into the claims and pa33 appropriate orders on the basis of facte to be founa8 by him aftor tho inquiry. Thore is no ordor as to coste. _ ChiefJustice 8r^;^A.