RAJ SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition stems from proceedings for mutation of names. These proceedings were initiated under section 33 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The controversy centres round certain agricultural plots left behind by one Khazan Singh.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that Khazan Singh left behind three sons, Deep Chand, Kiran Singh and Ziley Singh. They were, therefore, the male lineal descendants of Khazan Singh and in the normal course they will be intitled to succeed under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as Land Reforms Act). Raj Singh, the petitioner, is the grandson of Khazan Singh and is the son of Deep Chand.

(3.) SECTION 220 of the Act provides that 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. As would be observed, the Board in the impugned order has recorded a finding that it passed the earlier order under a grave misconception. It is well-known that even where a statutory power of review has not been conferred upon a court or tribunal, the power to review an order passed under misconception is inherent. In the instant case, it cannot be said, that the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue that it has passed the earlier order under misconception is either illegal or without jurisdiction or arbitrary.