BIRCHHU CHAUDHARY ALIAS RAWAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing an order dated 3-7-1989 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj.

(2.) It appears that respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), making a prayer for re-transfer of the lands which had been purchased by these petitioners. That application was dismissed on 14-11-1983 by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, by a reasoned order. Instead of filing an appeal against that order respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 14-11-1983. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the Act aforesaid does not contain any provision for entertaining a review application and, as such, it was not open to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, to entertain the review application filed on behalf of the said respondents. By the impugned order that objection filed on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected and the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, has come to the finding that the application for review was maintainable before him.

(3.) It is well known that the power to review in a creature of statutes. There is no dispute that there is no provision in the Act aforesaid vesting power in the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who is exercising the power or' a Collector, to review his final orders on the principles of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms while passing the impugned order has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Chandrika Sah v. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna and others, 1981 BBCJ 106. In that case the learned Judge having held that power of review is a creature of statute and as there was no provision under the Act in question there was no scope to entertain an application for review. However, it was pointed out that even Tribunals have inherent power to undo a wrong and in exercise of that power if a party, against whom an adverse order has been passed, had not been heard before passing of such order, it is open in appropriate cases to such Tribunals to recall the earlier order and then to hear the parties concerned.