Heard Shri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Shri I. D.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that the controversy involved in the present case relates to plot no. 353 khata no.111 situated in village Karmaganj, Tehsil Kunda, District-Pratapgarh recorded in the name of one Smt. Mahdei who died on 14.10.1982 After the death of Smt. Mahdei, petitioner moved an application for mutating his name in the revenue record in respect of the land in question on the basis of Will deed, rejected by order dated 24.1.1987 passed by Naib Tehsildar, challenging the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 21. of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dismissed by order dated 26.8.1998 (Annexure No.3) passed by the appellate authority/Deputy Collector Kunda, Pratapgarh.
Order dated 26.8.1998 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision bearing Revision No.144 of 1998, dismissed by order dated 26.10.1999 (Annexure No.4) passed by revisional authority/Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, on 17.11.1999, he filed a review application, allowed by order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure No.5) passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Order dated 25.11.2002 was challenged by the contesting respondent, dismissed by order dated 19.1.2004 (Annexure No.6) passed by Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow against which a review has been filed by the contesting respondent, allowed by order dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure No.1) passed by Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the first and foremost question which is to be decided is whether the action on the part of the Additional Commissioner thereby passing the order dated 17.11.1999 and reviewing his earlier order dated 26.10.1999 is a correct exercise or not.
In order to decide the said controversy, it is appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 220 of the Land Revenue Act quoted herein below:-
"Power of Board to review and alter its order and decrees-
(1)The Board may review, and may rescind, alter or confirm any order made by itself or by any of its members in the course of [business connected with settlement].
(2)No decree or order passed judicially by it or by any of its members shall be so reviewed except on the application of a party to the case made within a period of ninety days from the passing of the decree or order, or made after such period if the applicant satisfied the Board that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
(3)Members not empowered to alter each other's orders- A single member vested with all or any of the powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by the Board or by any member other than himself."
From the perusal of the abovesaid Section, it is clear that only the Board of Revenue has got power to review its earlier order under the Land Revenue Act and no any other authority has been vested with the said power.
It is well settled proposition of law that power to review is given to an authority by the statute itself and that particular authority can exercise the same and in the absence of such provisions, no other authority can exercise the powers of review.
In the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur and others AIR 1987 SC 2186, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-
"It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasi judicial authority. It is not disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing the order dated January 24, 1986 by her order dated March 7, 1987. The said order of the Vice Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 was a nullity."
In view of the abovesaid facts, the order dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure No.1) passed by Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow that the Additional Commissioner has got no power to review its earlier order dated 26.10.1999 is perfectly valid, needs no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, as prayed, the petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition.
Order Date :- 21.9.2012/Mahesh