(1.) THIS is an application for review of an order dated 20-8-1959 by which miscellaneous Petition No. 254 of 1957, was dismissed. That petition was directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 8th February, 1957, whereby its own earlier order dated 15th February, 1951, confirming the sale of malik-makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakh-pur, together with a house standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted.
(2.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the order dated 20th August, 1959, which was passed on a petition under Article 228 of the constitution, cannot, in the absence of any power conferred by the statute, be reviewed at all. Reliance is placed upon In Re, prahlad Krishna, ILR (1951) Bom 181: (AIR 1951 Bom 25) (FB) and Hajee Suleman v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, (S) AIR 1955 Madh-B 108. These cases lend soma support to the respondents, but a contrary view was taken in Chenchanna v. Praja Seva Transports, Ltd. , ILR (1952) Mad 1000 : (AIR 1953 Mad 39) and Dan Singh v. Additional Collector, bijnor, AIR I960 All 152. The last-mentioned case is very similar to this case The controversy also appears to have been quieted by the view taken by the Supreme court in Sheodeo Singh v. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1958, D/-8-21961 (SC) Mudholkar, J. , who spoke for the Court, observed;
(3.) SINCE this power of review of an order passed under Article 226 is the power inhering in the Court, it is not, for that reason, fettered by the words of Order 47 rule 1 Civil Procedure Code or any other analogous law. Even so, this case is, so far as review is concerned, strictly within the principles enacted in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. The order dated 20th August, 1959, proceeded solely on the view that the sale was void in that it was made Without the personal sanction of the deputy Commissioner required by Rule XIV of the Rules framed under section 128 of the Land Revenue Act, 1917 (hereinafter called the Act ). The counsel, who had not noticed that the Rule was subsequently amended, also accepted that the Rule as originally framed applied to the facts of the case. Actually, the Rule, which has been amended on 2 November, 1945, dispensed with the sanction of the Deputy commissioner and empowered the Sub-Divisional Officer to sanction the Sale. Since, in this case, the Sub-Divisional Officer had, as required, previously sanctioned the sale, it was not assailab1e for want of a valid sanction. It is obvious that overlooking the amendment, the case was decided on the rule as originally framed. There was thus an erroneous assumption that the unamended rule continued to be in force. Clearly, this is an error apparent on the face of the record. If any authority is required, I may refer to the subsequent judgment of lord Du Parcq in North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain, 75 Ind App 343 : (AIR 1949 PC 112 ). in view of the error, I review and set aside the order dated 20th August 1959, I would now consider the case afresh in the light of the submissions made once again by the counsel.