- (1.) This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2002. The necessary facts giving rise to the special appeal are that the second respondent Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh sold a piece of land to the first respondent Smt. Hamida Banu for sum of Rs. 13050/-. The said order of Nagar Palika, Chittorgarh dated 22.2.1999 was challenged by the appellants by way of revision petition under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 mainly on the ground that the Municipal Board had no authority to sell the subject land being a public way. The revision petition was allowed by the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 22.10.1999, having held that the order suffers from number of infirmities. The said order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was challenged before this court by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the first respondent to file a review application before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, a review application was filed before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The review application was opposed by the appellants on the ground of maintainability. The objection was rejected on the ground that the review application was filed in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has recalled the order and listed the case for hearing. The said order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that as it was not open for him to take a different view then taken by a co-ordinate bench.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant special appeal deserves to be allowed. It appears that the learned Single Judge has only given a liberty to file the review application before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. This permission was granted on specific statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent that he intended to file a review application before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. It was for the learned counsel to verify if the review application was maintainable or not. Thus, the liberty to file review application was given in case there existed any provision of law. If the learned counsel without verifying the fact that whether there existed any power of review has made statement then he must thanks himself. The relevant portion of the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge is extracted as follows:- "In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file review petition before the Learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, Permission granted, disposed of as withdrawn".
(3.) It is well settled principle of law that power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Reference be made to Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273 . Thus, we are of the view that the review application was not maintainable before the Additional Divisional Commissioner.;