- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. Although this miscellaneous writ petition is appearing for admission after 6 years since 1988 as no direction was passed earlier by learned judge concerned at the time of moving of the petition on July 5, 1988, but, by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition i taken for final hearing and disposal.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by an order dated 4-4-1988 passed by the respondent No. 2, dismissing his review application. The contention of Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the peti tioner is that although the government authorities have admitted that there was a mistake in the mentioning of the plot number yet the appellate authority did not exercise his power of review and dismissed the review application of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 4-4-1988. Although it is highly debatable point as to whether such revisional authority has implied power of review, although, not confirmed expressly by statute but, in the interest of justice since it has already been admitted by the respondent authorities that there was wrong mentioning of plot No. 553, measuring 20 acre, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to recall his earlier order dated 9-2- 1984 whereby the earlier application of review filed by the petitioner was dismissed without considering the factual aspect of the matter.
(3.) THIS Court is of the view that since there is no express power of review in the statute, it will be difficult for the revisional authority, functioning by discharging judicial function, unless this power is treated to be inherited with the concerned authority. That being actual legal position, I set aside the impugned order dated 4-4-1988 passed by the respondent No. 2, and, remand back this matter to the revisional authority for exercising jurisdiction of review, and, if he finds that there was an apparent mistake of wrong mentioning of plot number as already been admitted by the lower revenue authorities, the respondent No. 2 is directed to exercise his judicial discretion by allowing the review application by recalling his earlier order in accordance with law. Such determination is to;