S. R. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-7-1993 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia has recalled his earlier order dated 18-6-1993 on an application moved on behalf of the respondent Surya Deo.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the order dated 18-6-1993 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and, therefore, urged the learned counsel, it was not liable to be revieved or recalled in absence of any express statutory power of review. LEARNED counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the order dated 18-6-1993 was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 2 and that it was based upon erroneous assumption of certain facts which did not exist as also upon ignorance of correct state of facts relevant to exercise of revisional power under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The first question to be considered is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation has the power to review/recall an order passed by him under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and if so on what grounds. In Qadam Singh v. Ganga Saran, 1960 ALJ 838 a Division Bench of this Court held as under: "Section 48 certainly confers upon a Deputy Director of Consolidation the powers to pass such orders as he thinks proper but having passed such orders it does not expressly, nor, by implication confer upon him the power to set aside his earlier order and pass another order in its place."
(3.) IN Kalika Prasad v. Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, AIR 1956 All 103, it has been held : "From the examination of these authorities, it is clear that the power to review can only be exercised if it has been expressly conferred by the Statute. There is no inherent powers given to the Courts to reconsider their orders once passed unless the power of review is granted expressly under the provisions of the Statute." In Devi Prasad v. Khelwan, AIR 1957 Alld 67, it was held that as a general rule no Court or Judge has power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or order after it has been rendered or drawn up respectively.;