- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition ers have sought quashing of the order dated 17-04-2004, passed by Deputy Di rector of Consolidation, in Review Appli cation No. 456 of 2003-04, whereby or der dated 18-11-2003, passed by said au thority is recalled and a date has been fixed for rehearing of the parties.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, coun ter affidavit, supplementary counter af fidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Brief facts of the case are that during the consolidation proceedings in Village Rahmatpur, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, when the petitioners came to know that in Form CH-5, Khata No. 303 is shown as river, they filed objections under Section 9a of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, challenging that in the revenue record Khata No. 303 has wrongly shown as river. The petitioners' case is that in Suit No 46 of 1955, they were declared Sirdar of the aforesaid land vide order dated 02-09-1955, passed by the Revenue officer. It is pleaded by the petitioners that on the basis of said order, petitioners' names were entered in Khasra No 92/1 and 92/ 10 for the year 1362 fasli. (Calendar year 1954-55 ). The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, allowed the objection of the petitioners vide its order dated 24-07- 1995. Aggrieved by said order, Gaon Sabha, Rahmatpur, filed appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation. Said authority allowed the appeal vide its order dated 02-11-2001. On this, the petitioners filed revi sion before the Deputy Director of Con solidation (respondent no. 1), which was registered as Revision No. 494 of 2002-03, and after hearing the parties the revision was allowed vide order dated 18-11-2003 (Copy Annexure 6 to the writ petition ). At this stage on behalf of respondent no. 3 Gaon Sabha, an ap plication was moved on 18-12-2003, for review of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. To the review application, the petitioners filed their objection that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no authority to review its order and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. However, after hearing the parties the Deputy Director of Con solidation allowed the review applica tion, holding that where an order has been obtained by fraud said authority has power to review its order. While al lowing the review application, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ob served that the entry made in the mu tation register, wherein order dated 02-09-1955 is mentioned in fact is a forged entry, as there is no mention of the or der number and date of the order in the column provided for it in the register. Challenging the order of respondent no. 1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation), it is alleged by the petitioners in this writ petition that said authority has no power to review its order, and the order recall ing order dated 18-11-2003 is illegal and without jurisdiction and based on pre sumptions. Learned counsel for the petition ers drew attention of this Court to the case of Smt. Shivraji and others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, R. D. 1997 (88) pg. 562, wherein Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that the consolidation authorities have no power to review their order. I have gone through the order passed by Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivraji (supra ). No doubt Allahabad High Court after discussing the various Single Judge and Division Bench judgment of that Court has fi nally held that since there is no provi sion empowering the Deputy Director of Consolidation to review its order under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as such it cannot be said that said authority has power to review its order. However, on reading the full judgment, this Court finds following observations made by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Para 35 : "any tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, which is not vested with power of review under the statute expressly or by necessary implication, has an inherent power of review of its previous order in any circumstances. In our view the deci sions only lay down the proposition that a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power has the inherent power to correct a clerical mistake or arithmetical error in its order and has the power to review an order which has been obtained by practicing fraud on the Court, pro vided that injustice has been perpe trated on a party by such order. Therefore, these decisions should not be construed as laying down any proposition of law contrary- to the well settled principle of law that any order delivered and signed by a ju dicial or quasi judicial authority at tains finality subject to appeal or re vision as provided under the Act and if the authority passing the order is not specifically vested with power of review under the statute, it cannot reopen the proceeding and review/ revise its previous order". From the above observations, it is clear that the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, while holding that Deputy Director of Consolidation has no author ity to review its order has left it open for him to review and to correct clerical mis take or arithmetical error or to recall the order obtained by fraud on the Court. From the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which is annexed as Annexure 8 to this writ petition, it is clear that the Deputy Di rector of Consolidation after hearing the partiers found that the entry relied by the petitioners appears to be based on fraud committed on the Court. In the last Para of the judgment, before formal order is passed, the Deputy Director of Consoli dation has observed as under : Hindi As such, it is clear that respondent no. 1 has recalled its order exercising the inherent power vested in it as the order dated 18-11 -2003 was found to have been obtained by playing fraud on Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order whereby the order dated 18-11-2003 is recalled.
(3.) HOWEVER, it is necessary to ob serve here that the petitioners are still at liberty to place its case before the re spondent no. 1 , who has fixed further date for hearing of the revision to show that the entry made in the mutation reg ister was not forged one. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 14-05-2004, passed by this Court is vacated. No order as to costs. .;