JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue in a Revision No.3/A-23/2005-06 which emanates from the revenue case No.2/A-23/2003-04.

3. The facts of this case would show that the petitioners were the last purchasers of the land bearing Khasra No.87/2 and 88/2 admeasuring 1.58 acres situated at village Sargipal, RI circle Jagdalpur (C.G.) Tahsil and District Jagdalpur. The facts as would show that initially the land was held by one Sonmati Dhurwa S/o Chetan Dhurwa, he had different lands at village Sargipal. An application was filed by land holder before the Collector on 12.11.1962 seeking permission to sale the land in favour of the non-tribal person namely Bansilal Kapur S/o Ramchandra Kapur. On such application being filed, the Collector registered the revenue case and an enquiry was conducted. During such enquiry, the report was called for from the Tehsildar and statements were recorded and eventually by an order dated 1st of August, 1963, permitted the sale to be executed in favour of Bansilal Kapur for a sale consideration of Rs.825 thereby accorded permission under Section 165 (6) of the Land Revenue Code.

4. The sale was permitted up to the extent of 1.58 acres of land in respect of part of Khasra No.87 and 88. Pursuant to such permission, the sale deed was executed on 26.08.1963 in favour of Bansilal Kapur. After certain period of time, Bansilal Kapur sold the land to Sayeed Moiuiddin Rizvi (respondent No.3), thereafter, Sayeed Moiuiddin Rizvi on 26.12.2000 had sold the same land to Krishna Kumar Das the petitioner No.1 herein. Krishan Kumar Das after some period of time sold the land to one K. Lalita Rao on 02.12.2004 and K. Lalita Rao after some time sold the same to Smt. Devendra Kour Jaswal, the petitioner No.2 herein on 23.09.2006.

5. Further the facts would show that on 28.07.2003 son of the Sonmati (erstwhile seller) filed an application before the SDO (R), Jagdalpur under Section 170 -B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959') with the averments that the area of subject land of 1.58 acres was actually mortgaged to Bansilal Kapur vide Annexure P-3. Thereafter, the SDO made an enquiry from the revenue officers i.e. the Patwari and the revenue case was registered after hearing and by an order dated 16.02.2004 (Annexure P-5 colly) dismissed the application preferred by such respondent. The said order of 16.02.2004 was subject of appeal before the Collector. The Collector too after hearing the appeal came to a conclusion that the permission granted to Sonmati was just and legal and observed that subsequent sale too took place after initial sale of 1963 and eventually dismissed the appeal on 22.08.2005 (Annexure P-5 colly).

6. The said appellate order of dismissal was subject of revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by an order dated 24th of November, 2006 (Annexure P-6), the impugned order, admitted the revision and remanded the case for rehearing to the Collector. The petitioner has impugned such order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relevant part of the order of Board of Revenue would show that it was passed in exercise of powers under Section 51 of the Code, 1959. It is stated that the power of review cannot be directed to be exercised to the Collector therefore, the suo moto reconsideration of review cannot be made applicable. He refers to the judgment rendered by this Court on 07.09.2011 in a WP (227) No.2302/2008 and would submit that under the similar circumstances this Court has occasioned to interpret the Section 51 of the Code, 1959. He would further submit that the Board of Revenue has exercised the revisional power on 24.11.2006 to review the order dated 01.08.1963 i.e. after 40 years. He has placed the reliance in the case of M.P. Housing Board Vs. Shiv Shankar Mandil and Ors., (2009) AIR SC 863 and in the case of State of G