S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THIS petition stems from proceedings for mutation of names. These proceedings were initiated under section 33 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The controversy centres round certain agricultural plots left behind by one Khazan Singh.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that Khazan Singh left behind three sons, Deep Chand, Kiran Singh and Ziley Singh. They were, therefore, the male lineal descendants of Khazan Singh and in the normal course they will be intitled to succeed under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as Land Reforms Act). Raj Singh, the petitioner, is the grandson of Khazan Singh and is the son of Deep Chand. The Naib Tahsildar passed a certain order. In appeal the Sub Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Naib Tahsildar. In revision the Additional Commissioner made a reference to the Board of Revenue. This reference was disposed of by an order dated 24th February, 1981. Not satisfied with the order of the Board of Revenue a review application was made by Deep Chand and the same was accepted by an order dated 29th July, 1981. Raj Singh feels aggrieved ; hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the forefront the argument advanced in support of this petition is that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in accepting the review application in its order dated 24th February, 1981. The Board of Revenue made reference to the case set up by the petitioner Raj Singh that he acquired rights in the agricultural plots of Khazan Singh on the basis of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by Khazan Singh. However, it passed the ultimate order in the following terms :- " In the net result the reference of the learned Addl. Commissioner is accepted but with the modification that all the orders in the present mutation proceedings passed in the lower courts are set aside." In paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 29th July, 1981, the Board of Revenue has observed as follows :- " I have given careful thought to the arguments of counsel for both the parties. In the order under review there is a factual error in para 6 in the assumption that the present mutation proceedings were started by Raj Singh. Apart from this, I remember consciously not passing any order regarding mutation in place of Khazan Singh on the assumption, since proved mistaken, that the name of the some of the deceased Khazan Singh had already been entered in the records under section 33 of the Land Revenue Act. It is in this connection that, within the knowledge of counsel for both the parties, a report was called for from the Collector. This report shows that there was no entry made under section 33, and that the only entries made in the records were in the proceedings under section 34 which have been quashed by the order under review. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is an omission in contravention of section 35 which requires rectification in review. I am also satisfied that this rectification is not in conflict with any of the findings arrived at in the order dated 24-2-1981 under review. "
(3.) SECTION 220 of the Act provides that the Board may review, and may rescind, alter or confirm any order made by itself or by any of its members in the course of business connected with settlement. As would be observed, the Board in the impugned order has recorded a finding that it passed the earlier order under a grave misconception. It is well-known that even where a statutory power of review has not been conferred upon a court or tribunal, the power to review an order passed under misconception is inherent. In the instant case, it cannot be said, that the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue that it has passed the earlier order under misconception is either illegal or without jurisdiction or arbitrary. Section 33 of the Act provides that the Collector shall maintain the records of rights, and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe, cause to be prepared an amended register mentioned in section 32. Therefore a duty is cast upon the Collector to maintain the record of rights. The Board of Revenue while exercising revisional powers in proceedings under section 33 is under an obligation to administer section 33. It abdicated its functions when it, in its first order dated 24th February, 1981, directed that no order at all should be passed in the mutation proceedings. The effect of such an order obviously was that the name of Khazan Singh, a dead person, was allowed to exist in the records. In substance, the Board of Revenue gave a direction that no orders at all should be passed under section 33 of the Act. If there was no order at all passed in those proceedings; the question of reviewing such an order does not arise. In the eye of law the order passed under section 33 read with section 220 of the Act is the impugned order dated 29th July, 1981.;