- (1.) THIS is an application for review of the order of the Board, date d February 15, 1955 in a Matmi case.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicant as to the maintainability of this review application. His contention is that the Matmi Rules do not provide for any review application and that the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, are not applicable to Matmi proceedings as laid down in sec. 46 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench ruling of the Rajasthan High Court in Mathulal vs. Collector, Sawai Jaipur (1951 RLW, 290), where it has been held that "it is a well-settled principal of law that when a matter is finally disposed of by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, that authority in the absence of any statutory provision, becomes functus officio and is left with no authority to rehear and give a fresh decision unless such authority is given to it by law. " The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show us anything against this. We, therefore, hold that in the absence of any statutory provision for review, the present review petition is incompetent. 2. As a legal point of some significance was raised in the grounds of review we have heard the learned counsel on that point as well. The applicant's counsel has not been able to show that there was any error apparent on the face of the record or that he discovered any new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order under review was made. His only contention is that since a dispute existed between the parties, the Revenue Board was not competent to dispose of the matter finally by sanctioning Matmi in favour of the non-applicant, as it is contrary to the powers given to it under Rule 26, Appendix 'd' of the Matmi Rules. There is no substance in this argument also. Appendix 'd', Rule 26 sets forth the powers of various authorities to sanction or order resumption of Matmi. The limitation placed upon the powers of the Board would come into play only where the Matmi is to be sanctioned originally by the Board upon the recommendations of the subordinate officers. It can have no application to cases where the Board is deciding the propriety, legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the subordinate officers in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the Rules. It is highly significant to observe that the wording "provided there is no dispute" do not appear in the schedule of powers of the Nazim or the Dy. Commissioner. It would be absurd to hold that in appeals against the decision of these officers, the Board cannot pass any orders simply because there is a dispute. It would be against the express provision of rule 28 of the Rules, which lays that appeals against original orders not being a recommendation or a report shall lie to the next higher authority. It is an undisputed maxim of law that an appellate authority has all the powers of and can pass all orders that may be passed by the trial court. Thus the contention wised by the learned counsel has no force. The review petition is hereby rejected. .;