SANYASI CHARAN JENA Vs. RAI CHARAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope and ambit of Section 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the 'Act') falls for consideration in this case.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Petitioner No. 1 Sanyasi filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Binjharpur for assessment of rent in respect of accreted land of plot No. 609 of khata No. 193 of mauza Golakund. Petitioners claimed it to be a stitiban holding measuring an area of A0. 17 decimals. According to them, in course of time, the bed of river Brahmani receded towards north leaving a vast track of land to be cultivated by the adjoining land owners. In this alluvial process, an area of A0. 52 decimals was accreted to the petitioners' plot No. 609. Petitioners claimed to be the owners of the accreted land. A proceeding under Section 21 of the Act was registered as O.L.R. case No. 6 of 1990. The Revenue Officer made an enquiry through the Amin and accepted the petitioners' claim by order dated 7 -9 -1990. The petitioners thereafter paid rent for the years 1965 -66 to 1990 -91, as directed by the Revenue Officer. It is to be noticed that in the year 1989 the petitioners father Punakar Jena filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1939 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jaipur for declaration of his title to the area, which he claimed to have accreted to his land. The suit was withdrawn after disposal of the application referred to above by order dated 7.9.1990. Opp. party Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application for review under Section 60 of the Act, mainly on the ground that there was a compromise decree in respect of the land in question in Title Suit No. 96 of 1941 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur on 13.5.1948 The prayer for review was objected to by petitioners primarily on the ground that Title Suit No. 96 of 1941 did not relate to the land in question, and in any event after long lapse of time an application for review is not maintainable, both on the ground of limitation and on the ground that review is permissible for correction of clerical mistake or error, and not otherwise. The Revenue Officer, however, considered the matter afresh on merits, and held that the case for review was made out. Accordingly, he recalled the order dated 7.9.1990 passed by his predecessor, by order dated 22.6.1991 (Annexure -9) which is impugned in this application.

(3.) THE review is a reconsideration of the same plea by the some Court or forum. The power to review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. it is a power entirely different from the power which an authority exercises while disposing of a matter either originally or in appeal. It is well -settled that the power of review is not an inherent power. (Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumensinghji Ariunsinghji : AIR 1970 SC 1273) There may be cases where Court finds that on account of an error committed by it one of the parties before it suffered injury, and in such a case a question may arise whether the Court itself would undo the mischief. That it because of the accepted principle that no act of the Court should prejudice a party before it, and it is bounden duty of the Court to see that if a person is prejudiced by mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for the mistake. (See Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Ors. : AIR 1966 SC 1661). That aspect has no relevance so far as the case at h3nd is concerned Review was not sought for on the ground that the Court committed a mistake by acting in a manner violative of the mandatory provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to the procedure.