MAGUNI GURU Vs. KRUSHNA GOCHHI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the Revenue Officer, Athgarh allowing an application for review.

(2.) THE Petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of a piece of land measuring Ac.0.32 decimals out of plot No. 1046 in Khata No. 221 of mouza Solabandha which stood recorded in the name of Chaitanya Mahprabhu at Kanpur with a note of tenancy right in the name of the grand -father of the 'Petitioner. By virtue of a registered deed dated 27 -6 -1974 purporting to transfer the land in his favour, the opp. party No. I cultivated the said land. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') (in O. L. R. Case No. 166/76) praying for declaring the transfer as invalid on the ground that the Petitioner is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and no permission for transfer had been taken from the Revenue Officer in compliance of Section 22 of the Act. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Athgarh, who was the Revenue Officer authorised to deal with this matter by his order dated 13 -4 -1977 (Annexure -1) held that the deed of transfer (which he described as a kabala) executed by the Petitioner in favour of opp. party No. 1 was void as it contravenes the provisions of Section 22 of the Act and consequently it was directed that the opp. party No. 1 be evicted from the land and the Petitioner be restored with the possession thereof. The Petitioner claims to have been restored with possession after evicting opp. party No. 1 on 4 -5 -1977. Opp. party No. 1 did not file any appeal against the said order though it was appealable under Section 58 of the Act. He, however, filed an application on 10 -5 -1977 praying for review of the order alleging inter alia that the transaction was not a sale, but mere contract permitting him to cultivate the land and therefore, the same is not a transfer which is prohibited under Section 22 of the Act. The order of eviction of the present opp. party No. 1 and restoration of possession in favour of the present Petitioner was sought to be reviewed on the ground that the Revenue Court had proceeded on an erroneous conclusion that it was a transfer which would be hit by Section 22 of the Act. The present Petitioner challenged the maintainability of the application for review on the ground that it is beyond the scope of Section 60(1) of the Act to reopen the matter for fresh disposal on the aforesaid ground. The Revenue Officer however by his order dated 20 -11 -1981, which has beep impugned in this writ application, held that he had jurisdiction to entertain, the application and allowed the same on the ground that the document in question was not a sale deed but it was an istamarari patta for which reason the previous order passed by the S. D. O. declaring the document void and evicting the present opp. party No. 1 therefrom was illegal.

(3.) "Review" means a judicial re -examination of the case in certain specified and prescribed circumstances. It is well established in law that a right or review does not exist unless conferred expressly or by necessary implication by law. For an authority a decision reported in Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1273 may be referred to Section 60(1) of the Act provides that any order passed under the Act may, after notice to all persons interested, be reviewed by the officer who made the order or his successor in office on the ground of any clerical mistake or error in course of 'any proceeding, under the Act. The Supreme Court dealing with a case reported in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr., 1966 S.C.D. 368, under the Orissa Sales Tax Act examined the scope at Rule to of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. Rule 83 empowers the Commissioner of Sales Tax to correct any arithmetical or clerical mistake or any error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order passed by him or it. The position of law has been explained by their Lordships by observing that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under this rule is limited and is confined only to the correction of mistakes or omissions mentioned therein. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made.